LIBRARY 

OF   TIIK 

Theological   Seminary, 

PRINCETON,    N.J. 

SC<2_ 


Citse, 

Shelf, 


Book, 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2013  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://archive.org/details/inquiryiOObarn 


AN 


I N  Q  U  1  R  Y 


IXTO 


Tin:    SCRirXUliAL    YIEAVS 


OF 


SLAYER  Y, 


BY 


ALBERT  BARNES. 


T^  iXcvicpiav  LXoi'/ifji'  av  dvri  wj/  iXfjJ  navrojv  koI  aXXojj/  no\\an\aai(i)v. 

Xe:<oph.  Anab.  lib.  i.  c.  vii.  3. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
PERKINS  &  PMRVES,  CHESTNUT  STREET. 

HUSTON:    B.    T  K  R  K  I  N  S   Sc   CO. 

1846. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1816,  hy 

ALBERT  BARNES, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


ITSKSOTTFED   BY    L.   JOHKSOK   &  CO.,  FHILAOELPHIA. 


CONTENTS. 


Pape 
IxTHonrcTiox     5 

Chap.  I.  Reasons  why  the  appeal  on  the  subject  of  Slavery  should 

be  made  to  the  Bible 19 

1.  The  Bible  is  the  acknowledged  standard  of  morals  in  this 

nation 21 

2.  The  subject  of  slavery  is  one  on  which  the  Bible  has  legis- 

lated,  and  there  is,  therefore,  a  propriety  that  we  should 
ascertain  its  decisions       ...... 

3.  The  question  whether  slavery  is  right  or  wrong  can  only 

be  settled  by  an  appeal  to  the  Scriptures   . 

4.  Great  reforms,  on  moral  subjects,  do  not  occur  except  under 

the  influence  of  rcHgious  principle    .... 

5.  Because  it  is  by  such  an  appeal  that  the  advocates  of  slavery 

endeavour  to  defend  the  system         .... 

Chap.  II.  Jlliat  constitutes  Slavery  ? 

(1.)  Not  a  mere  condition  of  apprenticeship     . 

(2.)  Not  to  be  confounded  with  the  condition  of  a  minor  . 

(3.)  Not  merely  a  governmental  affair      .... 

(4.)  Not  a  mere  relation  in  which  legislative  bodies  alone  are 
concerned        ........ 

(5.)  Does  not  pertain  wholly  to  a  legislature  to  regulate    . 
(6.)  Not  a  condition  like  that  of  the  serfs  of  Russia,  &c. 
(7.)  Not  the  kind  of  property  which  a  man  has  in  his  wife  or 
child 

1.  Is  wholly  involuntary  on  the  part  of  the  slave 

2.  Is  property  claimed  in  that  which  belongs  to  him,  but  which 

he  is  not  at  liberty  to  resume  to  himself    . 

3.  Is  a  right  of  property  in  all  that  pertains  to  the  slave    . 

4.  Is  a  right  of  property  in  his  services  without  equivalent  or 

compensation  . 52 

5.  Involves  the  right  to  sell  him  as  the  master  pleases        .         .     .'>4 
The  true  question  stated 56 

3 


22 
23 
25 


4  CONTENTS. 

Page 
Chap.  III.  Slavery  in  the  time  of  the  Patriarclis  •         .         .58 

Meaning  of  the  words  denoting  servitude  in  the  Scriptures         .     64 

CuAP.  IV.  Slavery  in  E^ypt 81 

I.  The  resemblance  between  the  servitude  of  the  Hebrews  in 

Egypt  and  shwery  now 83 

n.  Wliether  the  interposition  of  God,  in  that  case,  was  such  as 
to  make  it  proper  for  us  to  derive  any  conclusions  as  to  his 
will  in  regard  to  slavery 96 

Chap.  V.  The  Mosaic  Institutions  in  relation  to  Servitude  .  .105 
§  1.  What  the  argument  which  is  relied  on  is  .  .  .  .107 
§  2.  What  the  Mosaic  institutions  in  regard  to  servitude  were  .  112 
§  3.  Comparison  of  the  Mosaic  uistitutions  in  relation  to  slavery 

with  those  existing  in  the  United  States    .         .         .         .160 

CuAP.  VI.  Hebrew  Servitude  in  the  time  of  the  Prophets     .         .  203 

1.  The  inquiry   in  regard   to  the  condition   of  the    native  in- 

habitants of  the  land  of  Palestine 206 

2.  There  was  no  foreign  traffic  in  slaves  .         .         .         .210 

3.  The  prophets  felt  themselves  at  liberty  to  animadvert  upon 

the  injustice  of  slavery,  &c.  &c 213 

Chap.  VII.  The  relation  of  Christianity  to  Slavery     .         .         .  229 
I.  There  is  no  evidence  that  Christ  himself  ever  came  in  con- 
tact with  slavery 242 

II.  The  manner  in  which  the  apostles  treated  the    subject  of 

slavery 249 

§  1.  They  found  it  in  existence  when  they  organized  churches 

out  of  the  limits  of  Judca 249 

§  2.  The  apostles  did  not  openly  denounce  slavery  as  an 
evil,  or  require  that  those  who  were  held  in  bondage 
should  be  at  once  emancipated  ....  260 

§  3.  The  question  whether  the  general  conduct  of  the  apos- 
tles is  consistent  with  the  belief  that  they  approved  of 
slavery  and  desired  its  perpetuity       ....  304 
The  case  of  Onesimus,  the  servant  of  Philemon   .         .318 
§  4.  The  principles  laid  down  by  the  Saviour  and  liis  apos- 
tles, arc  such  as  are  opposed  to  slavery,  and  if  carried 
out  would  secure  its  universal  abolition      .         .         .  340 
CoNCLUsiox         ....  ...'..  376 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  subject  of  slavery  is  one  in  which  all  men  have  an 
interest,  and  which  all  have  a  right  to  discuss.  It  pertains 
to  a  great  wrong  done  to  our  common  nature,  and  affects  great 
questions  relating  to  the  final  triumph  of  the  principles  of 
justice  and  humanity.  Wherever  wrong  is  done  to  any 
human  being,  there  is  no  improper  interference  if  the  con- 
viction is  expressed  by  any  other  one.  Wherever  principles 
are  held  which  have  a  tendency  to  produce  or  perpetuate 
wrong,  it  is  a  right  which  all  men  have,  to  examine  those 
principles  freely.  The  race  is  one  great  brotherhood,  and 
every  man  is  under  obligation,  as  far  as  he  has  the  ability,  to 
defend  those  principles  which  will  permanently  promote  the 
welfare  of  the  human  family. 

These  obvious  principles  have  a  peculiar  applicability  to  our 
own  land.  Our  country  is  one.  What  promotes  the  honour 
of  one  portion  of  the  nation,  promotes  the  honour  of  the  whole  ; 
what  is  dishonourable,  in  like  manner  pertains  to  all. 

Pre-eminently,  the  subject  of  slavery  pertains  to  the  repub- 
lic, as  such.  There  are  no  interests  of  our  common  liberty  or 
religion  which  are  not  affected  by  it ;  there  is  nothing  which 
our  fathers  valued,  and  which  we  have  been  taught  to  prize, — 
no  principles  of  justice,  or  humanity,  or  equal  rights,  or  in- 
dustry, or  morals,  which  are  not  more  or  less  affected  by  this 
institution.  If  it  be  a  good  institution ;  if  it  be  in  accordance 
with  the  divine  arrangements  for  the  welfare  of  society,  it  is 
the  duty  of  every  man  to  defend  it,  and  to  seek  its  extension 
in  the  world.  If  it  be  contrary  to  the  principles  of  the  Bible, 
and  if  its  tendency  be  evil,  he  is  under  no  less  obligation  to 

5 


6  INTRODUCTION. 

lift  up  his  voice  on  this  subject,  and  to  do  whatever  he  can, 
that  truth  and  justice  may  prevail.  Every  citizen  at  the 
North  whose  situation  is  such,  or  who  has  secured  such  a 
reputation  that  his  arguments  will  receive  respectful  attention, 
owes  a  duty  to  his  Southern  brethren  which  he  should  not 
fail  to  discharge,  and  should  not  die  without  giving  utterance, 
in  the  best  way  he  can,  to  his  convictions  on  the  subject 
of  American  slavery.  It  may  be  little  that  the  testimony 
of  any  one  individual  can  accomplish,  but  by  the  accumula- 
tion of  numerous  testimonies,  and  the  multiplication  of  ap- 
peals and  arguments,  the  conviction  may  gain  ground  all 
over  the  nation  that  slavery  is  wrong,  and  the  means  may  be 
devised  for  its  entire  removal.  As  one  having  a  common 
interest  in  whatever  affects  the  welfare  of  my  country^,  in 
the  prevalence  of  true  religion,  and  in  'opposing  whatever 
seems  to  me  to  militate  against  the  gospel,  I  desire  to 
discharge  this  portion  of  my  duly  to  my  generation,  how- 
ever humble  my  individual  influence  may  be,  and  to  record 
my  convictions  on  a  subject  of  so  much  concern  to  our 
whole  land. 

The  work  which  is  now  submitted  to  the  public,  is  limited 
to  an  examination  of  the  Scripture  argument  on  the  subject 
of  slavery.  This  is  done  because  this  seems  to  me  to  be 
the  most  important  department  of  the  general  argument 
respecting  slavery,  and  because  it  better  falls  in  with  my 
whole  studies  and  habits  of  investigation  than  any  other 
question  pertaining  to  it.  There  are  questions  in  regard  to 
the  general  subject — its  relations  to  agriculture  and  com- 
merce ;  its  political  bearings  ;  its  influence  on  the  means 
of  national  defence  and  security,  and  kindred  topics,  which  I 
do  not  feel  competent  to  examine,  and  which  can  be  much 
better  pursued  by  those  who  are  familiar  with  the  science 
of  political  economy  than  by  one  whose  studies  have  had  a 
different  direction.  To  a  man,  however,  who  has  spent  more 
than  twenty  years  in  an  almost  exclusive  study  of  the  Bible, 
it  may  be  permitted  to  examine  the  teachings  of  that  book 


INTRODUCTION.  7 

on  a  subject  so  important  as  this  is  ;  and  whatever  may  be 
the  inference  as  to  the  strength  of  his  argument,  there  are 
none  who  will  charge  him  with  a  departure  from  the  proper 
s]>here  of  his  duty. 

1  have  been  led  to  the  discussion  of  the  Scripture  ques- 
tion in  this  manner,  by  the  following  considerations : — 
(a)  Because  the  institution  of  slavery  is  defi'nded  by  many 
individuals  of  respectable  names,  and  by  entire  bodies  of 
men,  by  an  appeal  to  the  Bible.  (See  ch.  1.)  (A)  Because, 
although  there  have  been  some  professed  investigations  of 
the  Scriptures  on  this  subject,  evincing  considerable  re- 
search, submitted  to  the  public,  yet  they  did  not  any  of  them 
furnish  so  full  and  thorough  an  examination  as  seemed  to 
me  to  be  desirable.  Believing  that  the  spirit  of  the  Bible 
is  against  slavery,  and  that  all  the  arguments  alleged  in  fa- 
vour of  it  from  the  Bible  are  the  result  of  a  misunderstanding 
of  its  true  spirit,  and  that  the  honour  of  religion  demands 
that  that  argument  should  be  placed  fairly  before  the  world, 
I  was  desirous  of  doing  what  I  could  to  make  the  teachings 
of  the  Bible  seen  and  appreciated  by  my  fellow-men.  (r)  Be- 
cause it  did  not  appear  to  me  to  be  proper  to  preach  on  it  so 
fully  as  would  be  necessary  if  I  had  gone  into  a  thorough 
examination  of  the  subject  in  my  pulpit  instructions ;  and 
besides  this,  the  critical  nature  of  many  of  the  investigations 
is  little  fitted  to  the  pulpit.  Nor  if  I  hud  deemed  it  proper  to 
make  this  a  more  prominent  subject  of  my  preaching,  could 
I  have  reached  one  of  the  main  objects  which  seemed  to  me 
to  be  desirable.  The  people  to  whom  I  minister  will  bear 
me  witness  that  I  have  not  concealed  my  views  from  them 
on  the  subject  of  slavery.  I  have  endeavoured  to  give 
it  the  place  which  it  appeared  to  me  it  ought  to  occupy 
in  my  ministrations  in  the  circumstances  in  which  I  am 
placed.  But  my  lot  is  not  cast  in  a  slaveholding  commu- 
nity. I  do  not  know  that  I  have  an  advocate  of  slavery  in 
my  church,  or  that  there  is  one  who  statedly  attends  on  my 
ministry  who  would  willingly  be  the  owner  of  a  slave.     1 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

confess  also  that  it  seems  to  me  that  any  one  topic,  except  the 
cross  of  Christ,  however  important  in  itself,  may  be  intro- 
duced too  frequently  into  the  pulpit,  and  that  undue  pro- 
minence in  preaching  is  given  to  this  in  many  churches 
where  slavery  does  not  exist.  I  do  not  suppose  that  this 
occurs  too  frequently  in  those  places  where  slavery  does 
exist ;  but  where  the  pen  is  free,  and  a  man  may  make 
his  voice  heard  beyond  the  bounds  of  his  own  congregation, 
however  important  it  may  be  that  he  should  make  his 
views  decidedly  understood  in  reference  to  every  form  of 
national  sin,  and  should  exhibit  the  fair  teachings  of  the 
Bible  on  every  subject  in  the  proper  proportions,  it  is 
better  to  endeavour  to  influence  the  pubhc  mind  in  some 
other  method  than  by  making  any  one  topic  a  very  con- 
stant subject  of  discourse  in  the  pulpit.  Slavery,  though 
a  great  evil,  is  not  the  on/y  evil  in  the  land.  Its  influ- 
ence is  indeed  vast,  and  there  is  no  part  of  the  republic 
that  is  wholly  free  from  it,  but  there  are  other  bad  in- 
fluences in  our  country  also.  I  will  not  undertake  to  say 
hoiv  prominent  a  minister  should  make  this  topic  in  com- 
munities where  slavery  exists,  and  where  he  is  called  con- 
stantly to  address  those  who  sustain  the  relation  of  master 
and  slave  ;  nor  will  I  venture  to  say  that  /  should  be  in  any 
way  hkely  to  be  more  faithful  in  this  respect  if  my  lot  were 
cast  there,  than  I  fear  is  the ,  case  with  most  of  those  who 
reside  there,  but  I  may  be  allowed  to  suggest  that  the  pro- 
minent evils  which  we  should  assail  in  preaching  are  those 
which  are  near,  and  not  those  which  are  remote ;  those 
which  directly  pertain  to  our  own  people,  rather  than  those 
which  pertain  primarily  to  a  distant  community ;  and  those  in 
reference  to  which  we  may  expect  immediate  action  on  the 
part  of  those  who  hear  us,  in  forsaking  their  own  sins,  rather 
than  such  topics  as  will  lead  them  to  judge  of  others  \vho 
are  living  in  wickedness,  (d)  I  have  been  led  to  adopt  this 
course  because  it  was  in  this  way  only  that  I  could  hope  in 
any  manner  to  influence  those  whom  I  desired  to  reach.     I 


INTRODUCTION.  9 

have  already  saitl  lluit  1  am  not  accu.^tometl  to  pn^acli  to  many 
such.  But  I  would  hope  that  there  are  not  a  few  who 
may  be  wiUing  to  examine  an  arij:uinL'nt  on  slavery,  if 
proposed  with  candour,  and  if  pursued  with  a  manifest  desire 
to  know  what  is  the  teaching  of  the  Bible.  There  are,  I 
am  persuaded,  not  a  few  such  men  in  the  slaveliolding 
portions  of  our  country.  I  have  never  indeed  been  at  the 
South,  but  my  situation  has  given  me  an  opportunity  of 
becoming  acquainted  with  not  a  few  Southern  gentlemen, 
and  that  ac(juaintance  has  been  such  as  to  induce  me  to 
believe  that  there  are  large  numbers  there  who  would  ex- 
amine with  candour  an  argument  proposed  on  this  subject. 
Indeed,  I  have  been  led  to  apprehend  that  there  are  many 
there  who,  in  this  respect,  are  much  in  advance  of  many  at 
the  North,  and  that  among  these  are  many  who  exhibit  a 
degree  of  candour  which  we  do  not  always  find  in  those 
portions  of  our  country  in  which  slavery  does  not  exist. 
There  is  a  hesitancy  at  the  North  in  speaking  of  it  as  an  evil; 
a  desire  to  apologize  for  it,  and  even  to  defend  it  as  a  scrip- 
ture institution,  which  by  no  means  meets  the  convictions  of 
the  great  body  of  men  at  the  South,  and  for  ivhich  thcij  do 
not  thank  us.  They  regard  slavery  as  an  unmixed  evil — 
as  the  direst  calamity  of  their  portion  of  the  republic.  They 
consider  it  to  be  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  Bible.  They 
look  upon  it  as  a  curse  in  the  midst  of  which  they  were 
bom  ;  as  an  evil  entailed  upon  them  without  their  consent, 
and  which  they  desire  above  all  things  to  get  rid  of.  They 
remember  with  little  gratitude  the  laws  and  cupidity  of  the 
mother  country  by  which  it  was  imposed  on  them,  and  the 
Northern  ships  by  which  the  inhabitants  of  Africa  were  con- 
veyed to  their  shores;  and  they  little  thank  the  professors 
in  Theological  Seminaries,  and  the  pastors  of  the  churches, 
and  the  editors  of  papers,  and  the  ecclesiastical  bodies  at 
the  North,  who  labour  to  convince  the  world  that  it  is  not 
an  evil,  and  that  it  is  one  of  the  desierns  and  tendencies  of 
Christianity   to  rivet   the   curae   on   them  for  ever.     Such 


10  INTRODUCTION. 

men  ask  for  no  defence  of  slavery  from  the  North.  They 
look  for  a  more  manly  voice — for  more  decided  tones  in 
behalf  of  freedom,  from  those  whom  God  has  favoured 
with  the  entire  blessings  of  hberty,  and  they  ask  of  us  that 
we  will  aid  them  to  free  themselves  from  a  burden  imposed 
on  them  by  the  joint  wickedness  and  cupidity  of  our  father- 
land and  the  North ;  not  that  we  will  engage  in  the  miserable 
business  of  attempting  to  convince  the  world  that  the  South 
must  always  groan  under  this  malediction,  and  that  even  the 
influence  of  Christianity  will  be  only  to  make  the  evil  there 
eternal.  There  have  been  more  published  defences  of 
slavery  from  the  Bible  at  the  North,  than  there  have  been 
at  the  South.  A  Christian  man  can  look  with  some  respect 
on  a  defence  of  slavery  at  the  South — for  they  who  are 
there  live  in  the  midst  of  it,  and  it  is  natural  for  us  to  love 
and  defend  the  institutions  in  the  midst  of  which  we  were 
born;  but  what  respect  can  we  have  for  such  a  defence 
emanating  from  the  North  ? 

It  is  a  subject  of  not  unfrequent  complaint,  that,  in  the 
examination  of  this  subject,  the  adversaries  of  the  system 
endeavour  to  show  that  slavery  as  it  exists  in  our  own 
country  is  contrary  to  the  Bible,  instead  of  confining  them- 
selves to  the  naked  question  whether  slavery  in  the  abstract 
is  right  or  wrong.  They  are  willing  to  admit  that  there  are 
many  '  abuses^  in  the  system  as  it  now  exists ;  that  there  is 
much  that  is  oppressive  and  unjust  in  the  laws ;  and  while 
they  regard  slavery  in  itself  as  not  inconsistent  with  the 
Bible,  they  admit  that  there  is  much  in  the  system  in  our 
own  country  which  they  will  not  undertake  to  defend. 
They  maintain  that  the  controversy  should  be  confined  to  the 
naked  question  whether  slavery  in  any  form  is  inconsistent 
with  the  Bible,  and  that  it  is  unfair  in  this  argument  to  make 
an  appeal  to  slavery  as  it  now  exists,  in  determining  the 
morality  of  the  institution.  Thus  Dr.  Fuller,  in  accordance 
with  language  often  used  by  good  men  at  the  South,  says: — 
"What  1  am  writing  about  is  slavery,  but  let  no  one  suppose 


INTRODUCTION.  11 

that  I  nm  defondiniT  all  the  slave  laws."  "In  reftTcncc  to 
the  laws  of  South  Carolina  I  am  not  calN^d  to  express  myself 
in  this  discussion.  Sulllce  it  to  say,  that  most  of  them  arc 
virtually  repealed  by  universal  practice.  The  law,  for  ex- 
ample, forbidding  slaves  to  assemble  without  the  presence  of 
so  many  white  persons,  is  a  dead  letter,  whenever  the  meet- 
ing is  for  religious  purposes."  "It  is  not  of  the  slave  laws, 
but  of  slavery,  I  am  speaking;  and  the  character  of  this, 
accordinjT  to  the  eternal  principles  of  morality,  is  not  affected 
by  any  human  enactm<'nts."*  Thus  also  the  conductors 
of  the  Princeton  Biblical  Repertory  say: — "We  have  little 
apprehension  that  any  one  can  so  far  mistake  our  object,  or 
the  purport  of  our  remarks,  as  to  suppose  either  that  we 
res^ard  slaverij  as  a  desirable  institution,  or  that  we  approve 
of  the  slave  laws  of  the  Southern  states.  So  far  from  this 
being  the  case,  the  extinction  of  slavery,  and  the  amelioration 
of  those  laws,  are  as  sincerely  desired  by  us  as  by  any  of  the 
abolitionists."  "It  follows  necessarily,  from  what  has  been 
said,  that  all  those  laws  which  are  designed  to  restrict  the 
master  in  the  discharge  of  the  duties  which  flow  from  his 
relation  to  his  slaves;  which  forbid  his  teaching  them  to 
read,  or  which  prohibit  marriage  among  them,  or  which 
allow  of  the  separation  of  those  who  are  married,  or  which 
render  insecure  the  possession  of  their  earnings,  or  are  other- 
wise in  conflict  with  the  word  of  God,  are  wicked  laws;  laws 
which  do  not  find  their  justification  in  the  admission  of  the 
right  of  ownership  in  the  master,  but  are  in  direct  contraven- 
tion of  the  obligations  which  necessarily  flow  from  that  right. 
If  the  laws  of  the  land  forbade  parents  to  instruct  their  chil- 
dren, or  permitted  them  to  sell  them  to  the  Turks,  there 
would  be  a  general  outcry  against  the  atrocity  of  such  laws; 
but  no  man  would  be  so  absurd  as  to  infer  that  having  chil- 
dren was  a  great  sin.  Parents  who  complied  with  such  laws 
would  be  great  sinners,  but  not  parents  who  did  their  duty  to 

•  Letters  to  Dr.  Wayland,  pp.  158,  159,  211. 


12  INTRODUCTION. 

their  children.  In  ail  other  cases,  men  distinguish  between 
the  relation,  whether  of  kings  and  subjects,  of  lords  and 
tenants,  of  parents  and  children,  and  the  laws  just  or  unjust, 
which  may  be  made  respecting  those  relations.  If  they 
would  make  the  same  distinction  between  slaveholding  and 
the  slave  laws,  they  woidd  see  that  the  condemnation  of  the 
latter  does  not  necessarily  involve  the  condemnation  of  the 
form,cr  as  itself  a  crime.'''' 

In  reply  to  this,  I  would  make  the  following  remarks: 
(«)  The  very  question — the  only  one  that  is  of  any  practical 
importance  to  us — is,  whether  slavery  as  it  exists  in  the 
United  Slates  is,  or  is  not,  in  accordance  with  the  principles 
and  the  spirit  of  Christianity.  As  an  abstract  matter,  there 
might  indeed  be  some  interest  attached  to  the  inquiry  whe- 
ther slavery,  as  it  existed  in  the  Roman  empire  in  the  time, 
of  the  Apostles,  or  in  Europe  in  the  middle  ages,  w^as  in 
accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  Christian  rehgion;  and  it 
cannot  be  denied  also  that  for  us  there  may  be  some  interest, 
and  for  others  great  interest,  in  the  question  whether  slavery 
as  it  exists  in  India  or  in  Brazil,  is  in  accordance  with  the 
principles  of  the  Bible,  but  neither  of  these  are  the  questions 
which  are  fairly  before  the  American  people.  When  the 
inquiry  respects  any  particular  institution,  it  is  proper  to  look 
at  that  institution  as  it  exists,  not  as  it  might  possibly  exist: 
— for  that  is  the  only  question  Avhich  it  is  of  much  import- 
ance to  examine.  When  an  inquiry  pertains  to  the  tempe- 
rance reformation,  or  to  the  morality  of  gambling,  it  is  proper 
to  look  at  these  things  as  they  actually  are,  for  the  object  is 
to  ascertain  whether  it  is  desirable  to  make  any  change  in 
them.  This  is  especially  important  if  an  evil  is  of  long 
standing;  if  it  is  incorporated  into  the  customs  and  habits  of 
a  people;  if  it  is  sustained  by  the  laws;  if  it  affects  the  wel- 
fare of  millions  of  human  beings.  When  Christianity  first 
made  war  on  idolatry,  the  immediate  and  most  important 
question  which  came  up  to  be  examined,  was  not,  whether 
some  modified  form  of  idolatry  might  not  be  consistent  with 


INTRODUCTION.  13 

the  new  system  of  religion,  or  whether  there  mi*,'ht  not  be 
found  in  some  community  a  form  of  idolatry  which  Thris- 
tianity  could  consistently  tolerate,  but  whether  the  idolatry 
with  which  Christianity  then  came  in  actual  collision  was 
consistenl  with  its  principles.  In  examining  the  morality  of 
the  sfacfe,  shall  we  not  examine  it  as  it  is,  not  as  it  possibly 
niisrht  be ;  shall  we  not  look  at  its  practical  workino;  to  know 
whether  it  is  a  o-ood  or  a  bad  thinjr?  Is  it  not  right  to  ask 
whether  the  principles  of  the  Bible  sanction  the  drama  as  it 
is?  Is  there  any  other  question  respecting  it  that  is  of  im- 
mediate practical  importance  ?  [b)  It  is  not  improper  to 
regard  slavery  as  it  exists  in  the  United  States  as  a  fair 
illustration  of  the  tendency  of  the  system.  It  exists  here  in 
the  best  age  of  the  world,  and  in  the  land  most  distinguished 
for  intelligence,  and  for  wisdom  in  making  and  administering 
laws.  The  laws  pertaining  to  the  system  here  may  be 
regarded  as  those  which  long  experience  has  shown  to  be 
necessary.  It  may  be  presumed  that,  amidst  the  prevalent 
intelligence  of  this  land,  the  best  measures  have  been  adopted, 
or  those  which  are  regarded  as  the  best,  to  make  the  S3'stem 
of  slavery  as  perfect  as  possible.  The  laws  in  the  several 
slave  states  are  those  which  experience  has  shown  to  be 
necessary  that  the  system  may  be  perpetuated;  that  this 
kind  of  "property"  may  be  as  secure  as  possible,  and  that  the 
institution  may  be  made  to  contribute  as  much  as  possible  to 
the  wealth  and  comfort  of  the  community  in  which  it  pre- 
vails. .  In  the  free  states  it  is  proper  to  look  to  the  laws 
existing  there  in  regard  to  common  schools,  to  real  and 
personal  property,  to  the  administration  of  justice,  to  appren- 
ticeship, as  a  fair  expression  of  the  nature  of  the  institutions 
tliere — as  showing  what  experience  has  demonstrated  to  be 
adapted  to  secure  the  best  working  of  the  system — as  an 
exponent  of  the  real  value  and  character  of  the  system  at 
this  advanced  age  of  the  world.  What  shall  forbid  us,  in 
like  manner,  to  regard  the  laws  and  customs  which  are 
found  necessary  at  the  South,  as  a  fair  iUuitrali-jii  of  the 


14  INTRODUCTION. 

system — as  an  exponent  of  what  slavery  is  in  the  best  age 
of  the  world,  and  under  the  guidance  of  legislative  wisdom 
and  experience?  That  some  of  the  laws  may  be  so  modified 
as  better  to  secure  the  ends  in  view;  that  some  that  are 
harsh  may  be  repealed  consistently  with  the  best  working 
of  the  system,  need  not  be  denied — ^just  as  in  the  farther 
progress  of  society  in  free  states  some  of  the  modes  of  punish- 
ment may  be  modified  with  advantage;  but  still,  in  the  main, 
in  the  one  case  and  the  other,  the  existing  laws  may  be 
regarded  as  what  the  best  wisdom  of  the  world  has  been  able 
to  devise  to  make  the  system  as  perfect  as  possible.  I  have 
therefore,  in  this  Inquiry,  freely  appealed  to  the  existing 
laws  in  the  Southern  states,  not  for  the  purpose  of  casting 
reproacli  on  those  portions  of  our  country  where  slavery 
exists,  but  for  the  sole  design  of  ascertaining  w^hat  the  system 
is,  and  of  examining  the  question  whether  a  system  which  so 
develops  itself  is  in  accordance  with  the  Bible,  (c)  If  any 
system  of  slavery  is  sustained  by  the  Bible,  it  may  be  pre- 
sumed that  that  which  exists  in  the  United  States,  is.  This 
is  a  Christian  land — a  land,  to  a  degree  elsewhere  unknown, 
under  the  influence  of  the  Christian  religion.  In  what 
country  could  we  hope  that  slavery  would  exist  in  a  milder 
or  better  form  than  in  the  United  States?  Our  institmions 
have  grown  up  under  the  influence  of  Christianity.  Not 
a  few  of  the  legislators  of  the  land  have  been  pious  men. 
Not  a  few  of  the  owners  of  slaves  are  pious  men,  and  are 
gathered  into  Christian  congregations  under  the  instruction 
of  men  abundantly  able  to  explain  the  doctrines  of  the 
Christian  system.  It  could  hardly  be  hoped  that  a  state 
of  society  could  be  found,  in  which  slavery  could  be 
better  developed,  and  where  its  developments  would  more 
accord  with  the  principles  of  the  Bible,  than  in  our  own 
land.  Why  then  is  it  not  fair  to  appeal  to  slavery  as  it 
is,  and  to  inquire  whether  the  system  as  it  now  exists 
is  in  accordance  with  the  Bible?  Is  it  not  as  imprac- 
ticable to  form  an  ideal  system  of  slavery  that  shall  be  free 


INTUODUCTIOX.  15 

from  all  objections,  and  lliat  shall  be  in  all  the  laws  and 
customs  by  which  it  is  sustained  in  entire  conformity  with 
the  New  Testament,  as  it  is  to  perfect  the  drama  so  that  it 
shall  be  wholly  free  from  objection  on  the  score  of  morals  ? 
(d)  The  advocates  of  slavery  themselves  appeal  to  the  Bible 
to  show  the  propriety  of  slavery  as  it  exists  in  the  United 
States.  When  the  question  is  agitated  whether  slavery  is 
right  or  wrong,  they  almost  uniformly  make  their  appeal  to 
the  Scriptures  to  sustain  themselves  in  the  practice  of  it. 
The  appeal  which  they  make  to  the  Bible  is  not  to  prove 
that  slavery  as  it  existed  in  Palestine  in  the  time  of  Moses 
was  right;  or  that  slavery  in  Greece  and  Rome  was  right; 
or  that  slavery  in  India,  Cuba,  or  Brazil,  is  right;  but  to 
vindicate  themselves  in  the  practice — to  show  that  slavery  in 
our  own  land  cannot  be  regarded  as  wrong,  and  especially  to 
show  that  the  position  taken  by  many  that  slavery  is  a  sin, 
is  not  sustained  by  the  Bible.  When  we  make  an  attack 
on  slavery  as  it  exists  in  the  United  States,  and  endeavour  to 
show  that  it  is  an  evil — that  it  is  morally  wrong — that  it 
ought  to  be  abandoned — they  make  their  appeal  at  once  to 
the  Bible.  Why  is  this,  but  to  defend  slavery  as  it  exists  in 
this  country?  If  this  is  7iot  the  drift  of  the  argument,  why 
do  they  not  at  once  admit  that  slavery  here,  as  it  actually 
exists,  is  wTong,  and  enter  on  the  foreign  question  whether 
some  imaginary  form  of  slavery  could  be  vindicated  ?  What 
can  be  the  pertinency  or  propriety  of  such  an  appeal  to  the 
Bible  as  is  almost  uniformly  made  at  the  South,  and  fre- 
quently at  the  North,  unless  it  is  proper  to  bring  American 
slavery  as  it  is  by  the  side  of  the  Bible,  and  to  inquire  whe- 
ther, with  all  its  developments,  it  is  or  is  not  in  accordance 
with  the  word  of  God  ?  If  the  advocates  of  slavery  would 
take  this  ground,  and  admit  that  the  system  of  American 
slavery  is  in  fact  contrary  to  the  Bible,  the  field  of  debate 
would  be  much  narrowed.  But  as  long  as,  in  arguing  this 
question,  the  appeal  is  made  at  the  South  to  the  Bible,  it  can- 
not be  wrong  to  press  the  question  with  earnestness  whether 


16  INTRODUCTION. 

American  slavery  as  it  is  is  sanctioned  by  the  word  of  God. 
The  main  question  is  not  about  the  '  abuse'  of  the  systeTn — 
for  it  might  be  a  question  whether  there  is  any  abuse  of  it  pos- 
sible, that  is,  any  degree  of  oppression  and  wrong  which  the 
principles  of  the  system  do  not  sanction — but  about  the  thing 
as  it  is  fairly  developed  in  our  country.  For  what  is  the 
*  abuse'  of  slavery  ?  When  you  have  taken  away  a  man's 
liberty ;  when  you  have  made  him  a  piece  of  property,  and 
refused  him  the  right  of  citizenship,  and  the  right  in  his  wife, 
his  children,  and  himself;  when  he  is  to  be  wholly  at  the  will 
of  another,  what  precisely  is  to  be  understood  by  the  *  ahuse* 
of  the  system  ?  What  law  of  the  South  can  be  referred  to 
which  can  be  distinctly  shown  to  be  an  '•abuse'  of  the  system, 
in  the  sense  that  the  principles  of  the  system  do  not  lead  to 
it,  or  that  it  is  not  necessary  in  order  to  sustain  it  ?  It  may 
be  fairly  doubted  whether  there  is  a  single  law  or  custom  at 
the  South  which  can  be  shown  to  be  a  violation  of  the  fun- 
damental principle  of  slavery ;  and  if  this  be  so,  then  it  is 
proper  to  make  the  appeal  to  the  Bible  to  inquire  whether 
this  system  of  laws  and  customs  is  in  accordance  with  the 
revealed  will  of  God.  So  the  advocates  of  the  system  make 
their  appeal  when  it  is  attacked ;  and  so  it  is  right  for  us. 

I  may  be  permitted  to  add  another  prefatory  remark.  I 
have  endeavoured  to  conduct  the  argument  with  candour, 
and  with  a  kind  and  Christian  spirit.  In  noticing  the  aro-u- 
ments  of  the  advocates  of  slavery,  and  of  those  who  have 
in  any  manner  used  the  language  of  apology  for  it,  I  have 
not  designedly  given  any  representation  of  their  views  which 
would  diminish  their  force  ;  nor  have  I  been  conscious  of 
evading  an  argument  because  it  seemed  to  present  an  un- 
answerable objection,  or  a  material  obstacle,  to  the  views 
which  I  entertain.  I  have  not  sought  to  gain  any  thing 
in  the  argument  by  the  use  of  hard  names  ;  or  by  im- 
puting bad  motives  ;  or  by  assuming  that  every  thing  con- 
nected with  slavery  is  wrong ;  or  by  the  supposition  that 
the  slaveholder  is  necessarily  a  bad    man.      I  have  aimed 


INTRODUCTION.  17 

not  ncodlt'ssly  to  ofTend  any  one.  To  a  candid  examination 
of  the  views  expressed  by  the  advocates  of  slavery,  no  one 
can  reasonably  object  ;  and  if  I  have  been  enabled  to  evince 
the  spirit  in  this  argument  which  I  have  desired  to  do,  no 
one  will  have  just  occasion  to  be  offended  with  the  manner 
in  which  this  discussion  has  been  conducted.  If  1  have 
betrayed  any  other  than  a  kind  spirit,  and  have  used  any 
other  than  kind  words,  it  has  been  contrary  to  my  design. 
I  anticipate  that  in  some  of  the  views  expressed  in  this 
work,  I  shall  be  found  to  differ  from  not  a  few  of  my 
friends; — but  it  is  one  of  the  conditions  of  our  friendship 
that  each  one  is  at  liberty  to  express  his  opinions  with  en- 
tire freedom.  I  expect  to  be  found  to  differ  from  not  a  few 
of  the  wise  and  good  of  the  land  ; — but  it  would  be  impos- 
sible to  discuss  any  subject  on  morals  in  respect  to  which 
this  would  not  be  the  case — and  the  truly  wise  and  good 
are  accustomed  to  expect  that  this  may  occur.  All  such 
will  admit  that  the  points  discussed  in  this  work  are  of 
great  importance  to  the  best  interests  of  humanity :  to  me 
it  would  be  a  matter  of  high  gratification  if  the  discussion 
in  these  pages  should  be  found  to  be  such  as  to  contribute 
something  towards  promoting  uniformity  of  views  and  feel- 
ings on  one  of  the  most  momentous  questions  which  this 
age  is  called  to  investigate,  and  which  enters  more  deeply 
into  the  permanent  welfare  of  our  country  than  any  other. 


2* 


AN  INQUIllY 


INTO   THE 


SCIUPTUIIAL  VIEWS  OF  SLAVERY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Ilcasojis  why  the  appeal  on  this  subject  should  be  made  to  the  Bible. 

There  are  perhaps  no  questions  of  more  importance  to  our 
country  than  those  which  pertain  to  the  subject  of  slavery. 
The  fact  that  after  the  existence  of  more  than  half  a  century 
of  freedom  in  this  land,  there  should  be  in  the  midst  of  us  now 
a  number  nearly  equal  in  the  aggregate  to  the  white  popula- 
tion at  the  time  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  is  of  itself 
most  remarkable  in  history  ;  and  is  so  anomalous,  and  so  at 
variance  with  all  our  principles,  that  posterity  will  inquire  for 
the  reasons  of  such  an  occurrence.  This  number,  already  so 
large,  is  increasing  in  certain  parts  of  our  country  in  a  ratio 
fearfully  alarming,  and  the  effects  of  the  system  are  feU,  and 
must  be  felt,  in  every  portion  of  the  Republic.  There  is  no- 
thing connected  with  our  national  interests  which  is  not 
affected  more  or  less  by  slavery.  It  enters  into  the  represen- 
tation in  our  national  legislature ;  it  is  connected  with  great 
questions  of  industry,  hterature,  agricuhure,  commerce,  and 
morals  ;  it  is  intimately  allied  with  religion.  The  entire  South 
is  identified  with  it;  and  by  the  ramilications  of  business,  of 
education,  of  commerce,  and  of  manufactures,  there  is  not  a 
town,  a  school-district,  or  a  parish  in  the  North,  which  is  not 


20  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

directly  or  remotely  afTectcd  by  it.  As  a  part  of  a  great  na- 
tion— one  great  confederated  people — we  of  the  North  have 
the  deepest  interest  in  all  the  questions  that  pertain  to  the 
"vveal  or  wo,  the  perils  or  the  faults  of  any  part  of  our  country 
— for  we  share  the  common  honour  or  the  dishonour  of  the 
Republic.  Belonging  to  the  same  race  with  those  who  are  held 
in  bondage,  we  have  a  right,  nay,  we  are  bound  to  express  the 
sympathies  of  brotherhood,  and  to  "  remember  those  who  are 
in  bonds,  as  bound  with  them."  But  there  is  a  deeper  inte- 
rest slill  which  we  have  in  this  subject;  a  more  perfect  right 
which  we  have  to  express  our  views  in  regard  to  it.  The 
questions  of  morals  and  religion — of  right  and  wrong,  know 
no  geographical  limits ;  are  bounded  by  no  conventional  lines  ; 
are  circumscribed  by  the  windings  of  no  river  or  stream,  and  are 
not  designated  by  chmate  or  by  the  course  of  the  sun.  They 
are  questions  which  no  existing  compacts  or  constitutions  for- 
bid us  to  examine  ;  and  though  there  are-  rights  which  one 
part  of  a  country  has  which  are  not  to  be  invaded  by  others, 
yet  there  are  no  enclosures  within  which  the  questions  of  right 
and  wrong  may  not  be  carried  with  the  utmost  freedom. 

At  the  same  time,  this  subject  should  be  approached  with 
calmness  and  candour.  There  is  no  one  thing  pertaining  to 
the  welfare  of  our  common  country,  which  is  beset  with  so 
many  difficulties,  and  which  is  so  much  fitted  to  make  men 
of  all  classes  feel  their  need  of  the  "  wisdom  which  is  from 
above."  Hitherto,  all  "  the  wisdom  of  the  wise"  has  been 
confounded  in  regard  to  it,  and  if  there  is  any  question  that 
is  fitted  to  bring  the  whole  intellect  of  this  nation — including 
that  of  judges,  senators,  counsellors,  and  the  ministers  of  reh- 
gion,  at  the  feet  of  Infinite  wisdom,  it  is  the  question  respect- 
ing African  slavery.  How  is  the  evil  to  be  arrested  ?  How 
is  that  unhappy  people  among  us  to  be  restored  to  freedom, 
and  elevated  to  the  dignity  and  the  privileges  of  men?  How 
is  a  foreign  race  with  so  different  a  complexion,  and  in  refer- 
ence to  which  so  deep-seated  prejudices  and  aversions  exist 
in  every  part  of  the  land,  to  be  disposed  of  if  they  become 


SnurTURAL    VH.WS    OF    SLAVKRV.  21 

free  ?  These,  and  kindred  incjuiries,  have  hitherto  hafllj-d  all 
our  wisdom.  It  may  do  something  towards  answerinp:  ihrm, 
if  we  can  settle  the  prnnd  preHniinary  question  whether  shi- 
very is  right  or  wrong;  an  evil  per  sr,  or  only  an  evil  inci- 
dcnlally  and  by  abuse  ;  a  good  institution  which  God  designs 
to  be  perpetuated,  or  an  institution  which  he  regards  ns  evil, 
and  which  he  designs  that  the  principles  of  his  religion  and 
bis  own  Providential  deaUngs  shall  ultimately  destroy. 

In  the  examination  of  this  subject,  on  which  I  propose  now 
to  enter,  the  appeal  will  be  made  wholly  to  the  Bible,  for  the 
following  reasons : 

1.  The  Bible  is  the  acknowledged  standard  of  morals  in 
this  nation.  To  an  extent  wholly  unknown  in  other  lands,  it 
is  allowed  here  to  settle  all  questions  of  right  and  wrong,  and 
its  decisions,  when  clearly  ascertained,  are  conceded  to  be 
final.  It  is  not  indeed  directly  made  the  basis  of  legislation, 
and  it  cannot  be  denied  that  there  are  departures  from  its 
principles  in  many  practical  views  which  prevail,  yet  still  it 
maintains  an  ascendency  on  all  questions  of  morals  which  no 
other  book  can  acquire,  and  which,  by  the  mass  of  this  nation, 
will  be  conceded  to  no  other  authority  whatever.  There  are 
few  writers  on  morals,  and  probably  none  of  reputation,  who 
would  undertake  to  defend  a  position  that  was  plainly  against 
the  teachings  of  the  Bible.  It  may  be  safely  aOirmed  that 
there  is  not  a  legislative  body  that  would  take  the  ground 
of  openly  legislating  against  the  Bible  ;  there  is  not  a  judge 
on  any  bench  who  would  pronounce  a  decision  that  would  be 
clearly  contrary  to  a  principle  laid  down  in  the  Sacred  Scrip- 
tures ;  there  is  not  a  department  of  government  that  would 
not  admit  that  if  the  Bible  has  settled  a  question,  it  is  final. 
It  is  to  be  regarded  as  an  elementary  principle  in  the  ques- 
tions which  come  before  the  public  mind  in  this  nation,  that 
on  subjects  in  relation  to  which  there  are  clear  principles  in 
that  book,  the  intellect,  and  the  heart,  and  the  laws  of  this 
great  people  will  lx)W  reverently  before  that  high  authority. 
It  is  proper  therefore  to  bring  this  question  before  this  admit- 


22  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

ted  standard  in  morals,  and  I  shall  regard  it  as  a  safe  position, 
that  if  the  people  of  this  nation  were  convinced  that  slavery 
is  contrary  to  the  Bible,  they  would  at  once  institute  a  train  of 
measures  which  would  effectually  remove  the  evil.  We  may 
carry  a  clear  decision  of  the  Bible  to  any  class  of  our  citizens, 
expecting  that  the  authority  will  be  respected,  and  that  the 
obligation  to  obey  it  will  be  conceded.  This  sentiment  is 
recognised  at  the  South  as  well  as  at  the  North  ;  and  by  candid 
men  there  as  well  as  elsewhere  it  is  admitted  that,  if  slavery 
is  contrary  to  the  Bible,  it  must  be  abandoned.  Thus  it  is 
said  in  the  Southern  Quarterly  Review,  for  October,  1845, 
p.  334,  "Greatly  the  most  important  view  of  the  subject 
[slavery]  is  the  religious  one.  For  assuredly  if  slavery  be 
adjudged  a  sin,  if  it  be  condemned  by  the  revealed  will  of 
God,  then  in  Christendom  it  cannot  continue  to  exist.  It  is 
the  duty  of  every  man,  making  the  laws  of  God  the  rule  of 
his  conduct,  to  use  all  practicable  efforts  to  aboHsh  whatever 
violates  them." 

2.  The  subject  of  slavery  is  one  on  which  the  Bible  has 
legislated,  and  there  is,  therefore,  a  propriety  that  we  should 
ascertain  its  decisions.  An  institution  of  servitude  of  some 
kind  early  existed  in  the  world.  The  most  ancient  and 
venerable  men  whose  names  the  Sacred  History  has  trans- 
mitted to  us,  were  in  some  way  connected  with  it.  There 
are  numerous  statutes  on  the  subject  in  the  Mosaic  code  of 
laws.  The  Prophets  often  refer  to  it.  Servitude  had  an 
existence  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  and  they  often  came  in 
contact  with  it  in  their  attempts  to  spread  the  Gospel.  They 
have  repeatedly  alluded  to  it  in  their  writings,  and  have  laid 
down  principles  in  regard  to  it  which  they  evidently  designed 
should  be  understood  to  be  the  settled  laws  of  the  Christian 
religion.  In  fact  there  is  scarcely  any  one  subject  to  which 
there  is  more  frequent  allusion  in  the  Scriptures,  in  some  way 
or  other,  than  to  slavery ;  and  it  cannot  be  that  a  subject 
should  so  early  attract  the  attention  of  the  Great  Legislator 
whose  laws  are  there  recorded,  and  be  so  often  referred  to, 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKUV.  23 

without  ever  laying  down  any  principles  which  may  be 
regarded  as  decisive  in  regard  to  his  views.  It  is  to  be  pre- 
sumed that  it  is  possible  to  ascertain  wluther  (iod  regards  it 
as  a  good  institution  or  an  evil  one;  an  arrangement  in  society 
which  he  meant  his  religion  should  contribute  to  sustain  and 
perpetuate  for  the  good  of  the  race,  or  an  institution  which  he 
intended  it  should  ultimately  alx)lish. — There  is,  therefore, 
perfect  propriety  in  carrying  the  appeal  to  the  Bible ;  and 
there  can  be  few  things  more  important  than  to  ascertain 
what  are  the  teachings  of  the  Bible  on  the  subject.  If  slavery 
be  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  the  Bible,  and  be  the 
best  thing  for  society,  there  is  then  an  increasingly  large  part 
of  the  world  that  is  neglecting  to  avail  itself  of  the  advantages 
which  might  be  derived  from  the  institution,  and  that  is  fall- 
ing into  dangerous  error  on  a  great  question  of  morals — for 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  there  is  a  growing  conviction  in 
the  world  that  the  institution  is  not  one  which  it  is  desirable 
to  perpetuat-e  for  promoting  the  welfare  of  mankind. 

3.  There  is  little  approximation  to  a  settlement  of  the  ques- 
tion whether  slavery  is  right  or  wrong  on  other  grounds  than 
an  appeal  to  the  Scriptures.  Apart  from  the  influence  of 
the  Bible,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  any  advance  is  made 
towards  a  settled  and  uniform  judgment  on  this  subject. 
Considerations  of  humanity  or  policy  have  done  something 
indeed  to  change  the  views  of  men  in  regard  to  the  slave 
trade^  and  by  common  consent  this  has  come  to  be  regarded 
as  piracy  ;  but  it  may  be  doubted  whether  these  considera- 
tions have  done  any  thing  to  aflect  the  question  about  slavery 
itself  in  slaveholding  communities.  No  progress  was  made 
towards  its  abolition  in  the  Roman  empire  by  the  influence 
of  these  considerations.  Slavery  flourished  in  its  extremest 
rigour  under  the  highest  advances  made  in  Roman  policy,  and 
in  the  brightest  days  of  Roman  jurisprudence,  and  it  was 
only  by  the  application  of  religious  principle  that  it  was  ever 
permanently  afl^cted  in  the  empire.  In  England,  it  was  by 
the  power  of  religious  principle  in  Clarkson,  Wilberforce,  and 


24  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

their  fellow-labourers,  that  slavery  was  abolished,  and  not  by 
considerations  of  policy  or  mere  humanity.  In  our  own 
country,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  any  considerable  pro- 
gress has  been  made  in  determining  whether  slavery  is  to 
continue  or  not,  by  mere  political  considerations.  The  convic- 
tions of  the  great  mass  of  our  fellow-citizens  in  the  slaveholding 
part  of  our  country  in  regard  to  the  evils  of  slavery,  are  not 
more  decided  than  were  those  of  Jefferson,  and  though  since 
his  views  were  so  firmly  expressed  there  has  been  an  oppor- 
tunity of  observing  the  effects  of  the  system  for  half  a  century, 
yet  slavery  has  a  hold  on  the  country  at  large  not  less  tena- 
cious than  it  had  then.  It  is  indeed  not  difficult  to  show  the 
impolicy  of  the  system.  It  is  easy  to  show  the  superior 
prosperity  of  those  portions  of  our  country  where  it  does  not 
exist.  It  is  easy  to  point  to  the  exhausted  soil;  the  wasted 
fields ;  the  diminished  population  and  wealth  ;  the  compara- 
tive destitution  of  schools,  colleges,  and  churches ;  the  igno- 
rance, degradation  and  corruption  of  morals  which  slavery 
engenders ;  and  it  is  easy  to  fortify  all  this  by  the  splendid 
declamation  of  Southern  statesmen  themselves  about  the 
impoverished  condition  of  their  country,*  but  still  almost  no 

*  The  following  eloquent  remarks  by  two  Southern  gentlemen  in  Con- 
gress, furnish  at  the  same  time  a  mournful  description  of  the  effects  of 
slavery  on  the  condition  of  a  country ;  show  the  comparative  influence  of 
freedom  and  slavery ;  and  illustrate  the  argument  which  might  be  derived 
from  the  tendency  of  slavery,  to  show  that  God  does  not  approve  of  the 
system.  The  first  extract  is  from  a  speech  of  the  Hon.  Mr.  Clowney,  of 
South  Carolina.     He  says  : — 

"  Look  at  South  Carolina  now,  with  her  houses  deserted  and  falling  to 
decay,  her  once  fruitful  fields  worn  out  and  abandoned  for  want  of  timely 
improvement  or  skilful  cultivation ;  and  her  thousands  of  acres  of  inex- 
haustible lands  still  promising  an  abundant  harvest  to  the  industrious  hus- 
bandman, lying  idle  and  neglected.  In  the  interior  of  the  state  where  I 
was  bom,  and  where  1  now  live,  although  a  country  possessing  all  the 
advantages  of  soil,  climate  and  health,  abounding  in  arable  land,  unre- 
claimed from  the  first  rude  state  of  nature,  there  can  now  be  found  many 


SCRIPTURAL    VIF.WS    OF    SLAVF.RY.  25 

advance  is  made  towards  admitting  that  tlie  system  is  evil. 
Almost  no  efibrts  are  put  forth  to  remove  it.  No  conclusions 
against  it  are  derived  from  the  disapprobation  which  the  God 
of  Providence  is  placing  upon  it  by  these  results  of  the 
system,  and  if  the  intjuiry  is  ever  settled  it  must  be  by 
bringing  it  to  a  standard  which  all  will  admit  to  have  autho- 
rity to  determine  groat  questions  of  morals. 

4.  Great  reforms  on  moral  subjects  do  not  occur  except 
under  the  influence  of  religious  principle.  Political  revolu- 
tions, and  changes  of  policy  and  of  administration,  do  indeed 
occur  from  other  causes,  and  secure  the  ends  which  are 
desired.  But  on  subjects  pertaining  to  right  and  wrong  ;  on 
those  questions  where  the  rights  of  an  inferior  and  down- 
trodden class  are  concerned,  we  can  look  for  little  advance 
except  from  the  operation  of  religious  principle.  Unless  the 
inferior  classes  have  power  to  assert  their  rights  by  arms, 
those  rights  will  be  conceded  only  by  the  operations  of  con- 
science, and  by  the  principles  of  religion.  There  is  no  great 
wrong  in  any  community  which  we  can  hope  to  rectify  by 

neighbourhoods  where  the  population  is  too  sparse  to  support  a  common 
elementary  school  for  children.  Such  is  the  deplorable  condition  of  one 
of  the  oldest  members  of  this  Union,  that  dates  back  its  settlement  more 
than  a  century  and  a  half,  while  other  states,  born  as  it  were  but  yester- 
day, already  surpass  what  Carolina  was  or  ever  has  been  in  the  happiest 
and  proudest  day  of  her  prosperity." 

The  other  extract  is  from  a  speech  of  the  Hon.  Mr.  Preston,  of  South 
Carolina. 

"  No  Southern  man  can  journey  (as  he  had  lately  done)  through  the 
Northern  States,  and  witness  the  prosperity,  the  industry,  the  public 
spirit  which  they  exhibit' — the  sedulous  cultivation  of  all  those  arts  by 
which  life  is  rendered  comfortable  and  respectable,  without  feelings  of 
deep  sadness  and  shame  as  he  remembers  his  oum  neglected  and  desolate 
hotne.  There,  no  dwelling  is  to  be  seen  abandoned — not  a  farm  unculti- 
vated. Every  person  and  every  thing  performs  a  part  toward  the  grand 
result ;  and  the  whole  land  is  covered  with  fertile  fields,  with  manufac- 
tories, and  canals,  and  railroads,  and  edifices,  and  towns,  and  cities.  We 
of  the  South  are  mistaken  in  the  character  of  these  people  when  we  think 

3 


26  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

new  considerations  of  policy,  or  by  a  mere  revolution.  The 
relations  of  slavery  are  not  reached  by  political  revolutions, 
or  by  changes  of  policy  or  administration.  Political  revolu- 
tions occur  in  a  higher  region,  and  the  condition  of  the  slave 
is  no  more  affected  by  a  mere  change  in  the  government  than 
that  of  the  vapours  in  a  low,  marshy  vale  is  afftcted  by  the 
tempest  and  storm  in  the  higher  regions  of  the  air.  The 
storm  sweeps  along  the  Apennines,  the  lightnings  play  and 
the  thunders  utter  their  voice,  but  still  the  malaria  of  the 
Campagna  is  unaffected,  and  the  pestilence  breathes  desola- 
tion there  still.  So  it  is  with  slavery.  Political  revolutions 
occur  in  high  places,  but  the  malaria  of  slavery  remains 
settled  down  on  the  low  plains  of  life,  and  not  even  the  sur- 
face of  the  pestilential  vapour  is  agitated  by  all  the  storms 
and  tempests  of  political  changes.  It  remains  the  same 
deadly,  pervading  pestilence  still.  Under  all  the  forms  of 
despotism;  in  the  government  of  an  aristocracy  or  an  oli- 
garchy ;  under  the  administration  of  a  pure  democracy  or 
the  forms  of  a  republican  government,  and  in  all  the  changes 
from  one  to  the  other,  slavery  remains  still  the  same.     Whe- 

of  them  only  as  pedlars  in  honi  flints  and  bark  nutmegs.  Their  energy 
and  enterprise  are  directed  to  all  objects,  great  and  smaJI,  within  their 
reach.  The  number  of  railroads  and  other  modes  of  expeditious  inter- 
communication knit  the  whole  country  into  a  closely  compacted  mass, 
through  which  the  productions  of  commerce  and  of  the  press,  the  comforts 
of  life  and  the  means  of  knowledge,  are  universally  diffused ;  while  the 
close  intercourse  of  travel  and  of  business  makes  all  neighbours,  and  pro- 
motes a  common  interest  and  a  common  sympathy.  How  different  the 
condition  of  these  things  in  the  South !  Here  the  face  of  the  country 
wears  the  aspect  of  premature  old  age  and  decay.  No  imphovemext  is 
SEEN  GOING  ON,  nothing  is  done  for  posterity.  No  man  thinks  of  any 
thing  beyond  the  present  moment." 

It  is  true  that  these  gentlemen  attribute  these  effects  to  the  tariff,  but 
the  facts  in  the  case  are  the  things  of  cliief  importance  here.  Other  per- 
sons see  different  causes  at  work  than  the  tariff,  and  the  period  will  arrive 
when  the  true  cause  will  be  seen  by  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  slavehold- 
ing  states. 


SCKlPTrilAL    VIi:\VS    OK    SLAVKRY.  27 

thcr  the  master  is  hurled  from  the  throne,  or  rides  into  power 
on  the  tempest  of  revolution,  the  down-trodden  slave  is  the 
same  still,  and  it  makes  no  difference  to  him  wlietlier  the 
master  wears  a  crown  or  appears  in  a  plain  republican  garb ; 
whether  CaBsar  is  on  the  throne  or  is  slain  in  the  Senate 
house.  Slavery,  among  the  Romans,  remained  substantially 
the  same  under  the  Tarquins,  the  Consuls,  and  the  Ca:sars  ; 
when  the  tribunes  gained  the  ascendency,  and  when  the 
patricians  crushed  them  to  the  earth.  It  lived  in  Europe 
when  the  Northern  hordes  poured  down  on  the  Roman 
empire,  and  when  the  Cahphs  set  up  the  standard  of  Islam 
in  the  Peninsula.  It  lived  in  all  the  revolutions  of  the 
middle  ages — alike  when  spiritual  despotism  swayed  its 
sceptre  over  the  nations,  and  when  they  began  to  emerge 
into  freedom.  In  the  British  realms  it  has  lived  in  the  time 
of  the  Stuarts,  under  the  Protectorate,  and  for  a  long  time 
under  the  administration  of  the  house  of  Hanover.  With 
some  temporary  interruptions,  it  lived  in  the  provinces  of 
France,  through  the  Revolution.  It  lived  through  our  own 
glorious  Revolution  ;  and  the  struggles  which  gave  liberty  to 
millions  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  did  not  loosen  one  rivet 
from  the  fetter  of  an  African,  nor  was  there  a  slave  who  was 
any  nearer  to  the  enjoyment  of  freedom  after  the  surrender 
at  Yorktown,  than  when  Patrick  Henry  taught  the  notes 
of  liberty  to  echo  along  the  hills  and  vales  of  Virginia.  So 
in  all  the  changes  of  political  administration  in  our  own  land, 
the  condition  of  the  slave  remains  unaffected.  Alike  whether 
Federalists  or  Republicans  have  the  rule  ;  whether  the  star  of 
the  Whig  or  the  Democrat  is  in  the  ascendant,  the  condition 
of  the  slave  is  the  same.  The  pagans  of  victory  when  the  hero 
of  New  Orleans  was  raised  to  the  presidential  chair,  or  when 
the  hero  of  Tippecanoe  was  inaugurated,  conveyed  no  note 
of  joy,  no  intimation  of  a  change,  to  the  slave ;  nor  had  he 
any  more  hope,  nor  was  his  condition  any  more  afll'Cted 
when  the  one  gave  place  to  his  successor,  or  the  other  was 
borne  to  the  grave.     And  so  it  is  now.     In  the  fierce  con- 


28  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

tests  for  rule  in  the  land ;  in  the  questions  about  changes  of 
administration,  there  are  nearly  three  millions  of  our  fellow- 
beings  who  have  no  interest  in  these  contests  and  questions, 
and  whose  condition  will  be  affected  no  more,  whatever  the 
result  may  be,  than  the  vapour  that  lies  in  the  valley  is  by 
the  changes  from  sunshine  to  storm  on  the  summits  of  the 
Alps  or  the  Andes. 

The  reason  of  this  is,  that  these  questions  of  revolution  do 
not  go  into  these  humble  vales  of  life.  It  is  only  religion 
that  finds  its  way  down  and  effects  changes  there ;  and  the 
only  hope,  therefore,  of  producing  revolutions  on  this  great 
subject  is,  by  bringing  the  principles  of  the  Bible  to  bear 
upon  it.  The  suggestions,  therefore,  in  the  argument  which 
I  propose  to  conduct,  will  not  refer  to  the  political  bearings 
of  slavery,  but  to  the  naked  question  whether  the  institution 
is  in  accordance  with  the  Bible.  I  should  feel  myself  in- 
competent to  go  into  a  proper  examination  of  the  former  ques- 
tion ;  I  may  accomplish  some  good  if  I  can  do  any  thing  to 
determine  what  is  truth  in  regard  to  the  latter. 

5.  The  appeal  will  be  made  solely  to  the  Bible,  because  it 
is  by  such  an  appeal  that  the  advocates  of  slavery  endea- 
vour to  defend  the  system.  In  popular  speeches  ;  in  ser- 
mons ;  in  the  solemn  acts  of  Presbyteries,  synods,  conven- 
tions, conferences,  and  assemblies ;  in  formal  treatises  in 
defence  of  slavery,  in  pamphlets  and  reviews,  the  appeal 
is  constantly  made  to  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  In  popular 
illustrations  of  Scripture,  in  newspaper  articles,  in  learned 
commentaries,  and  in  the  formal  opinions  of  erudite  profes- 
sors at  the  North  and  the  South,  such  a  melancholy  general 
expression  of  opinion  that  the  Bible  lends  its  sanction  to 
slavery  prevails,  that  it  has  come  almost  to  be  regarded  as 
a  settled  matter.  A  few  selections  from  those  opinions  will 
illustrate  the  propriety  of  an  appeal  to  the  Bible,  and  will 
show  that  the  prevailing  method  of  interpreting  the  Bible 
on  this  subject  is  such  as  to  call  for  an  examination  of  the 
meaning  of  the  Scriptures,  involving  whatever  talent  may 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRV.  29 

be  found  adapted  to  such  an  inquiry,  and  whatever  patient 
Ialx)ur  such  an  inveslig^ation  may  demand.  The  extracts 
will  be  mere  brief  selections  designed  to  exhibit  tiic  pre- 
vailing mode  of  speaking  and  writing  on  the  subject  among 
intelligent  religious  men. 

The  following  is  the  declared  opinion  of  Rev.  E.  D.  Sinis, 
Professor  in  Randolph  Macon  College,  a  Methodist  institu- 
tion : — 

"These  extracts  from  holy  writ  unequivocally  assert  the 
right  of  i)roperty  in  slaves,  together  with  the  usual  incidents 
of  that  right,  such  as  the  power  of  acquisition  and  disposition 
in  various  ways,  according  to  municipal  reouhuions.  The 
right  to  buy  and  sell,  and  to  transmit  to  children  by  way  of 
inheritance,  is  clearly  stated.  The  only  restriction  on  the 
subject,  is  in  reference  to  the  market,  in  which  slaves  or 
bondmen  were  to  be  purchased. 

*'  Upon  the  whole,  then,  w'hether  we  consult  the  Jewish 
polity,  instituted  by  God  himself;  or  the  uniform  opinion  and 
practice  of  mankind  in  all  ages  of  the  world  ;  or  the  injunc- 
tions of  the  New  Testament  and  the  moral  law ;  we  are 
brought  to  the  conclusion,  that  slavery  is  not  immoral. 

*'  Having  established  the  point,  that  the  first  African  slaves 
were  legally  brought  into  bondage,  the  right  to  detain  their 
children  in  bondage  follows  as  an  indispensable  consequence. 

"  Thus  we  see,  that  the  slavery  which  exists  in  America 
was  founded  in  rights 

The  following  sentiment  was  expressed  by  the  late  Rev. 
Wilbur  Fisk,  D.  D.,  President  of  the  Wesleyan  University 
in  Connecticut,  a  name  standing  deservedly  high  in  the 
church. 

"The  relation  of  master  and  slave  may,  and  does,  in  many 
cases,  exist  under  such  circumstances,  as  free  the  ma:>ter  from 
the  just  charge  and  gviilt  of  immorality. 

"  1  Cor.  vii.  20 — 2IJ. — This  text  seems  mainly  to  enjoin  and 
sanction  the  fitting  continuance  of  their  present  social  rela- 
tions ;  the  freeman  was  to  remain  free,  and  the  slave,  unless 
emancipation  should  offer,  was  to  remain  a  slave. 

♦*  The  gen»>ral  rule  of  Christianity  not  only  permits,  but,  in 
supposable  circumstances,  enjoins  a  continuance  of  the  mas- 
ter's authority. 

3* 


30  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

"  The  New  Testament  enjoins  obedience  upon  the  slave  as 
an  obligation  due  to  a  present  rightful  authority." 

The  following  resolutions  of  different  religious  bodies  of 
the  South  may  be  regarded,  without  impropriety,  as  express- 
ing the  prevailing  sentiment  at  the  South  in  regard  to  the 
sanction  which  the  Bible  gives  to  slavery, 

HOPEWELL    PRESBYTERY,    SOUTH    CAROLINA. 

1.  "  Slavery  has  existed  in  the  church  of  God  from  the  time 
of  Abraham  to  this  day.  Members  of  the  church  of  God  have 
held  slaves,  bought  with  their  money,  and  had  them  born  in 
their  houses  ;  and  this  relation  is  not  only  recognised,  but  its 
duties  are  defined  clearly,  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

2.  "  Emancipation  is  not  mentioned  among  the  duties  of  the 
master  to  his  slave,  while  obedience  '  even  to  the  froward' 
master  is  enjoined  upon  the  slave. 

8.  *'  No  instance  can  be  produced  of  an  otherwise  orderly 
Christian  being  reproved,  much  less  excommunicated  from 
the  church,  for  the  single  act  of  holding  domestic  slaves,  from 
the  days  of  Abraham  down  to  the  date  of  the  modern  aboli- 
tionist." 

HARMONY    PRESBYTERY,    SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

"  Whereas,  sundry  persons  in  Scotland  and  England,  and 
others  in  the  north,  east,  and  west  of  our  country,  have  de- 
nounced slavery  as  obnoxious  to  the  laws  of  God,  some  of 
whom  have  presented  before  the  General  Assembly  of  our 
church,  and  the  Congress  of  the  nation,  memorials  and 
petitions,  with  the  avowed  object  of  bringing  into  disgrace 
slaveholders,  and  abolishing  the  relation  of  master  and  slave : 
And  whereas,  from  the  said  proceedings,  and  the  statements, 
reasonings,  and  circumstances  connected  therewith,  it  is  most 
manifest  ihat  those  persons  '  know  not  what  they  say,  nor 
whereof  they  affirm ;'  and  with  this  ignorance  discover  a 
spirit  of  self-righteousness  and  exclusive  sanctity,  &c. ;  there- 
fore. Resolved, 

1.  "That  as  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord  is  not  of  this  world, 
his  church,  as  such,  has  no  right  to  abolish,  aher,  or  afTect  any 
institution  or  ordinance  of  men,  political  or  civil,  &c. 

2.  "  That  slavery  has  existed  from  the  days  of  those  good 
old  slaveholders  and  patriarchs,  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob, 
(who  are  now  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,)  to  the  time  when  the 


SCRirTLRAL    VIKWS    OK    SLAVKRY.  31 

apostle  Paul  sent  a  runaway  slave  home  to  his  master,  Phile- 
mon, and  wrote  a  Christian  and  paternal  letter  to  this  slave- 
holder, which  we  find  still  stands  in  the  canon  of  the  Scrip- 
tures— and  that  slavery  h.is  existed  ever  since  the  days  ol  the 
apostle,  and  doos  now  exist. 

3.  "That  as  the  relative  duties  of  master  and  slave  are 
taught  in  the  Scriptures,  in  the  same  manner  as  those  of  pa- 
rent and  child,  and  husband  and  wife,  the  existence  of  slavery 
iu^elf  is  not  opposed  to  the  will  of  God  ;  and  whosoever  has  a 
conscience  too  tender  to  recognise  this  relation  as  lawful,  is 
'righteous  overmuch,'  is  'wise  above  what  is  written,'  and 
has  submitted  his  neck  to  the  yoke  of  men,  sacrificed  his 
Christian  liberty  of  conscience,  and  leaves  the  infallible  word 
of  God  for  the  fancies  and  doctrines  of  men." 

CHARLESTON    UNION    PRESBYTERY. 

•♦  It  is  a  principle  which  meets  the  vie\vs  of  this  body,  that 
slavery,  as  it  exists  among  us,  is  a  political  institution,  with 
which  ecclesiastical  judicatories  have  not  the  smallest  right  to 
interfere  ;  and  in  relation  to  which,  any  such  interference, 
especially  at  the  present  momentous  crisis,  would  be  morally 
wrong,  and  fraught  with  the  most  dangerous  and  pernicious 
consequences.  The  sentiments  which  we  maintain,  in  com- 
mon with  Christians  at  the  South  of  every  denomination,  are 
sentiments  which  so  fully  approve  themselves  to  our  con- 
sciences, are  so  identified  with  our  solemn  convictions  of  duty, 
that  we  should  maintain  them  under  any  circumstances. 

"  Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  Presbytery,  the 
holding  of  slaves,  so  far  from  being  a  sin  in  the  sight  of  God, 
is  nowhere  condemned  in  his  holy  word — that  it  is  in  accord- 
ance with  the  example,  or  consistent  with  the  precepts  of  pa- 
triarchs, apostles,  and  prophets,  and  that  it  is  compatible  with 
the  most  fraternal  regard  to  the  best  good  of  those  servants 
whom  God  may  have  committed  to  our  charge  ;  and  that, 
therefore,  they  who  assume  the  contrary  position,  and  lay  it 
down  as  a  fundamental  principle  in  morals  and  religion,  that 
all  slaveholding  is  wrong,  proceed  upon  false  principles." 

SYNOD    OF  VIRGINIA. 

"  The  committee  to  whom  were  referred  the  resolutions, &c., 
have,  according  to  order,  had  the  same  under  consideration — 
and  respectfully  report,  that  in  their  judgment,  the  following 
resolutions  are  necessary  and  proper  to  be  adopted  by  tho 
Synod  at  the  present  tiine  : 


32  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

"Whereas,  the  publications  and  proceedings  of  certain  or- 
ganized associations,  commonly  called  anti-slavery,  or  abolition 
societies  which  have  arisen  in  some  parts  of  our  land,  have 
greatly  disturbed  and  are  still  greatly  disturbing  the  peace  of 
the  church,  and  of  the  country ;  and  the  Synod  of  Virginia 
deem  it  a  solemn  duty  which  they  owe  to  themselves  and  to 
the  community  to  declare  their  sentiments  upon  the  subject ; 
therefore.  Resolved,  unanimously, 

"  That  we  consider  the  dogma  fiercely  promulgated  by  said 
associations — that  slavery,  as  it  exists  in  our  slaveholding 
states,  is  necessarily  sinful,  and  ought  to  be  immediately 
abolished — and  the  conclusions  which  naturally  follow  from 
that  dogma,  as  directly  and  palpably  contrary  to  the  plainest 
principles  of  common  sense  and  common  humanity,  and  to 
the  clearest  authority  of  the  word  of  God.'''' 

The  following  is  from  the  church  in  Petersburg,  Virginia, 
16th  November,  1838:— 

"  Whereas,  the  General  Assembly  did,  in  1818,  pass  a  law, 
which  contains  provisions  for  slaves,  irreconcilable  with  our 
civil  institutions,  and  solemnly  declaring  slavery  to  be  a  sin 
against  God — a  law  at  once  offensive  and  insulting  to  the 
whole  Southern  community  ;  Resolved, 

1.  "That,  as  slaveholders,  we  cannot  consent  longer  to 
remain  in  connection  with  any  church  where  there  exists  a 
statute  conferring  a  right  upon  slaves  to"  arraign  their  masters 
before  the  judicatory  of  the  church — and  that,  too,  for  the  act 
of  selling  them  without  their  consent  first  had  and  obtained. 

2.  "  That  as  the  Great  Head  of  the  church  has  recognised 
the  relation  of  master  and  slave^  we  conscientiously  believe 
that  slavery  is  not  a  sin  against  God,  as  declared  by  the 
General  Assembly. 

3.  "That  there  is  no  tyranny  more  oppressive  than  that 
which  is  sometimes  sanctioned  by  the  operation  of  ecclesias- 
tical law." 

Thus  also  the  Presbytery  of  Tombecbee,  in  a  formal  letter 
to  the  General  Conference  in  Maine,  expresses  the  following 
sentiments : — "  In  the  Bible  the  state  of  slavery  is  clearly 
recognised,  but  the  condition  of  the  slave,  like  that  of  all 
society,  is  left  to  be  regulated  by  the  civil  policy  of  the  state, 
or  country  in  which  it  exists.     Abram,  the  friend  of  God,  had 


SCRIPTURAL    Vir.WS    OF    SLAVKRY.  33 

slaves  born  in  his  house,  and  bought  with  money."  "Jacob 
held  slaves,  without  the  least  remorse  of  conscience,  or 
reproof  from  God."  "It  was  no  sin  for  a  priest  to  purchase 
a  slave  with  money."  "  The  Bible  warrants  the  purchase 
of  slaves  as  an  inheritance  for  children  for  ever."  "That 
slavery  is  not  a  moral  evil,  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  it  is 
nowhere  condemned  by  the  Redeemer,  or  his  apostles,  in 
the  New  Testament."  "  The  Bible  makes  slavery  a  part  of 
the  domestic  circle  ;  it  is  associated  with  husband  and  wife, 
parents  and  children." 

Views  similar  to  these  are  expressed  in  an  article  in  the 
Princeton  Biblical  Repertory,  for  April,  1830 — an  article 
which  was  reprinted  at  Pittsburgh,  on  the  eve  of  an  import- 
ant meeting  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
church,  by  Southern  gentlemen,  and  which  was  understood 
to  give  great  satisfaction  to  the  friends  of  slavery  in  the  South. 
The  following  extracts  will  show  the  views  of  the  writer,  and 
illustrate  the  inclination  of  those  who  look  favourably  on  the 
system,  to  sustain  their  views  by  the  authority  of  the  Bible. 

"  It  is  on  all  hands  acknowledged  that,  at  the  time  of  the 
advent  of  Jesus  Christ,  slavery  in  its  worst  forms  prevailed 
over  the  whole  world.  The  Saviour  found  it  around  him  in 
Judea  ;  the  Apostles  met  with  it  in  Asia,  Greece,  and  Italy. 
How  did  they  treat  it  ?  Not  by  the  denunciation  of  slavery 
as  necessarily  and  universally  sinful.  The  subject  is  hardly 
alluded  to  by  Christ  in  any  of  his  personal  instructions.  The 
Apostles  refer  to  it,  not  to  pronounce  upon  it  as  a  question  of 
morals,  but  to  prescribe  the  relative  duties  of  masters  and 
slaves." — pp.  275,  276.  "  An  obvious  deduction  from  the 
fact  above  referred  to,  is,  that  slaveholding  is  not  necessarily 
sinful." — p.  277.  "The  argument  from  the  conduct  of 
Christ  and  his  immediate  followers  seems  to  us  decisive  on 
the  point,  that  slaveholding,  in  itself  considered,  is  not  a 
crime," — p.  279.  "But  what  stronger  argument  can  be 
presented  to  prove  that  the  sacred  waiters  did  not  regard 
slaveholding  as  in  itself  sinful,  than  that  while  they  condenm 
all  unjust  or  unkind  treatment  (even  threatening)  on  the  jiart 
of  the  masters  toward  their  slaves,  they  did  not  condemn 
slavery  itself." — p.  280.     "  That  many  of  the  attributes  of 


34  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

the  system  as  established  by  law  in  this  country  are  con- 
demned, is,  indeed,  very  plain  ;  but  that  slaveholding  in  itself 
is  condemned,  has  not  been,  and  cannot  be  proved." — p.  281. 
"  It  is  admitted  by  these  distinguished  moralists  [Dr.  Chan- 
ning  and  Dr.  Wayland]  that  the  Apostles  did  not  preach  a 
religion  proclaiming  freedom  to  slaves;  that  Paul  did  not 
assail  slavery  ;  that  the  Gospel  did  not  proclaim  the  unlaw- 
fulness of  slaveholding ;  it  did  not  forbid  it.  This  is  going 
the  whole  leno^th  that  we  have  gone  in  our  statement  of 
the  conduct  of  Christ  and  his  apostles." — p.  282.  "The 
Apostles  did  not  condemn  slavery ;  they  did  not  require 
emancipation ;  they  recognised  slaveholders  as  Christian 
brethren." — p.  285.  "  Slavery  was  tolerated  among  the 
ancient  people  of  God.  Abraham  had  servants  in  his  family 
who  were  '  bought  with  money.'  The  Mosaic  institution 
recognised  the  lawfulness  of  slavery.  Our  argument,  from 
this  acknowledged  fact,  is,  that  if  God  allowed  slavery  to 
exist,  if  he  directed  how  slaves  might  be  lawfully  acquired, 
and  how  they  were  to  be  treated,  it  is  in  vain  to  contend  that 
slavery  is  a  sin,  and  yet  profess  reverence  for  the  Scrip- 
tures."— p.  287.  "  Slavery  is  a  question  of  circumstances, 
not  a  malum  in  5e." — p.  292.  "As  it  appears  to  us  too 
clear  to  admit  of  either  denial  or  doubt,  that  the  Scriptures 
do  sanction  slaveholding ;  that  under  the  old  dispensation  it 
was  expressly  permitted  by  divine  command,  and  under  the 
New  Testament  is  nowhere  forbidden  or  renounced,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  acknowledged  to  be  consistent  with  the  Chris- 
tian character  and  profession,  (that  is,  consistent  with  justice, 
mercy,  holiness,  love  to  God  and  love  to  man,)  to  declare  it  to 
be  a  heinous  crime,  is  a  direct  impeachment  of  the  word  of 
God."— pp.  297,  298. 

"Slavery,"  says  the  Hon.  J.  K.  Paulding,  (in  his  work 
entitled  "Slavery  in  the  United  States,"  pp.  14,  15,)  "is 
made  the  subject  of  express  regulation  in  the  social  institu- 
tions of  the  Jews,  and  this  without  a  single  expression  of 
disapprobation  on  the  part  of  the  divine  Lawgiver."  After 
quoting  several  passages  from  the  books  of  Moses  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery,  he  also  adds,  (pp.  19,  20,)  "Here  is  a  direct 
sanction  of  rights  corresponding  in  all  respects  with  those  of 
the  holders  of  slaves  in  the  United  States.  They  were 
orifnnally  '  of  the  heathen'  when  purchased  ;  their  posterity 
was  '  begot  in  the  land  ;'  and  they  have  descended  '  as  an 
inheritance  to  our  children.'  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  how, 
with   these   authorities   before   them,   the   Abolitionists  can 


SCRIPTURAL    Vir.WS    OF    SLAVERY.  35 

persist  in  maintaining  that  slavery  is  contrary  to  the  law  of 
God.*'  "There  is  no  authority  derivable  from  the  New  Tes- 
tament, which  justifies  the  assertion  that  slavery  is  contrary 
to  the  law  of  God." — p.  "24.  **  Slavery  existed  almost  usiver- 
sally  at,  and  aires  before,  the  Christian  dispensation,  and  it  is 
not  even  diseountmanced  there,  much  less  denounced  as  con- 
trary to  the  law  of  God." — p.  20. 

Dr.  Fuller,  in  his  letters  to  Dr.  Wayland,  says,  "  The  Old 
Testament  did  sanction  slavery.  And  in  the  Gospels  and 
Epistles  the  institution  is,  to  say  the  least,  tolerated.  You 
admit  some  sort  of  slavery  to  have  been  allowed  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and  suffered  by  Jesus  and  his  apostles.  A 
man  who  denies  this  will  deny  any  thing-,  and  only  proves 
how  much  stroncfer  a  passion  is  than  the  clearest  truth.  But 
if  this  point  be  yielded,  how  can  it  be  maintained  that  slave- 
holding-  is  itself  a  crime?" — pp.  3,4.  And  again:  "I  under- 
take to  show  that  the  Bible  does,  most  explicitly,  both  by 
precept  and  example,  bear  me  out  in  my  assertion,  that 
slavery  is  not  necessarily,  and  always,  and  amidst  all  circum- 
stances, a  sin.  This  is  the  position  to  be  established,  and  the 
entire  reasoning  (reasoning  which,  if  the  premises  be  true, 
really  seems  to  me  to  commend  itself  at  once  to  every  man's 
conscience)  is  this,  what  God  sanctioned  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament,   AND    PERMITTED    IN    THE    NeW,   CANNOT    BE    SIN."* 

To  these  extracts  may  be  added,  for  an  illustration  of  the 
prevailing  manner  in  which  the  subject  is  regarded,  the  fol- 
lowing views  of  Professor  Stuart,  than  whom  there  is  not  one 
of  higher  or  more  deserved  authority  in  this  land,  in  all 
questions  pertaining  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures. 
These  views  are  copied,  not  because  I  would  wish  to  convey 
the  impression  that  Professor  Stuart  is  or  would  be  either  the 
advocate  of  slavery,  or  the  apologist  for  it,  but  to  show  the 
importance  of  a  thorough  inquiry  into  the  actual  teachings  of 
the  Scriptures  on  this  subject.  The  following  is  Professor 
Stuart's  letter  to  Dr.  Fisk: 

"Andover,  .^pril  10,  1837. 
"  Rev.  and  Dear  Sir  : — Yours  is  before  me.     A  sickness 
of  three  months'  standing,  (typhus  fever,)  in  which  I  have 

•  Fuller  and  Wayland  on  Slavery,  p.  170. 


36  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

just  escaped  death,  and  which  still  confines  me  to  my  house, 
renders  it  impossible  for  me  to  answer  your  letter  at  larg-e. 

"  1.  The  precepts  of  the  New  Testament,  respecting  the 
demeanour  of  slaves  and  their  masters,  beyond  all  question, 
recog-nise  the  existence  of  slavery.  The  masters  are,  in  part, 
^believing  masters ;^  so  that  a  precept  to  them,  how  they  are 
to  behave,  as  masters,  recognises  that  the  relation  may  exist, 
salvafide,  et  scilva  ecclesia,  [without  violating  the  Christian 
faith  or  the  church;']  otherwise  Paul  had  notJiing  to  do  but 
to  cut  the  band  asunder  at  once.  He  could  not  lawfully  and 
properly  temporize  with  malum  in  se,  [that  which  is  in  itself 
sin.] 

"  If  any  one  doubts,  let  him  take  the  case  of  Paul's  sending 
Onesimus  back  to  Philemon,  with  an  apology  for  his  running 
aAvay,  and  sending  him  back  to  be  a  servant  for  life.  The 
relation  did  exist — may  exist.  The  abuse  of  it  is  the  essen- 
tial and  fundamental  wrong.  Not  that  the  theory  of  slavery 
is  right,  in  itself.  No.  *  Love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself — 
*  Do  unto  others  that  which  you  would  that  others  should  do 
unto  you,'  decides  against  this.  But  the  relation,  once  consti- 
tuted and  continued,  is  not  such  a  malum  in  se  as  calls  for 
immediate  and  violent  disruption  at  all  hazards.  So  Paul  did 
not  counsel. 

"2.  1  Tim.  vi.  2,  expresses  the  sentiment  that  slaves,  who 
are  Christians  and  have  Christian  masters,  are  not,  on  that 
account,  and  because  as  Christians  they  are  brethren,  to 
forego  the  reverence  due  to  them  as  masters.  That  is,  the 
relation  of  master  and  slave  is  not,  as  a  matter  of  course,  abro- 
gated between  all  Christians.  Nay,  servants  should,  in  such 
a  case,  a  fortiori,  do  their  duty  cheerfully.  This  sentiment 
hes  on  the  very  face  of  the  case.  What  the  master's  duty  is  in 
such  a  case,  in  respect  to  liberation,  is  another  question,  and 
one  which  the  apostle  does  not  here  treat  of. 

"3.  Everyone  knows,  who  is  acquainted  with  Greek  or 
Latin  antiquities,  that  slavery  among  heathen  nations  has 
ever  been  more  unqualified  and  at  loose  ends  than  among 
Christian  nations.  Slaves  were  property  in  Greece  and 
Rome.  That  decides  all  questions  about  their  relation. 
Their  treatment  depended,  as  it  does  now,  on  the  temper  of 
their  masters.  The  power  of  the  master  over  the  slave  was, 
for  a  long  time,  that  of  life  and  death.  Horrible  cruelties  at 
length  mitigated  it.  In  the  apostle's  day,  it  was  at  least  as 
great  as  among  us. 

"  After  all  the  spouting  and  vehemence  on  this  subject,  the 


SCKirTUIlAL    VIi:WS    OF    SLAV1.UV.  37 

good  old  Book  remains  tlie  same.  Paul's  coiiduct  and  advice 
are  still  safe  guides.  Paul  knew  well  thai  Christianity  would 
ultimately  destroy  slavery,  as  it  certainly  will.  He  knew  too 
that  it  would  destroy  monarchy  and  aristocracy  from  the 
earth,  for  it  is  fundamentally  a  doctrine  of  true  liberty  and 
etjualiti/.  Yet  Paul  did  not  expect  slavery  or  aristocracy  lo 
bt^  ousted  in  a  day,  and  gave  precepts  to  Christians  respecting 
their  demeanour,  ad  interim. 

"  With  sincere  and  fraternal  re^-ard, 
"  Your  friend  and  brother, 

"M.  Stuart." 

These  extracts,  with  the  considerations  which  have  been 
suggested,  will  show,  it  is  believed,  the  propriety  of  the 
course  which  I  propose  to  pursue  in  this  argument.  By  the 
resuhs  of  such  an  investigation,  the  people  of  this  land  ulti- 
mately must  and  will  abide.  He  that  shall  contribute  any 
thing,  however  humble,  to  influence  the  public  mind  in 
coming  to  a  right  decision  on  so  momentous  a  question,  w^iil 
not  have  hved  in  vain. 


38  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 


CHAPTER  II. 

What  constitutes  Slavery  ? 

The  issue  of  the  question  about  the  lawfulness  of  slavery 
must  depend  materially  on  the  answer  which  is  given  to  the 
question,  What  constitutes  slavery?  Until  this  is  deter- 
mined, it  is  impossible  to  arrive  at  any  settled  views  on  the 
inquiry  whether  it  is  right  or  wrong. 

The  true  inquiry  here  is,  what  are  the  essential  features 
of  the  system  ?  What  distinguishes  it  from  all  other  relations 
of  life — from  the  relation  of  a  child,  a  minor,  an  apprentice, 
a  day-labourer,  a  serf,  a  'villein'  under  the  feudal  system? 
Slavery  has  some  features  which  resemble  certain  things  in 
other  relations,  and  the  attention  is  sometimes  fixed  on  these 
features  of  resemblance,  forgetting  what  constitutes  the  pe^ 
culiarity  of  the  system,  and  then  an  argument  is  constructed 
(to  prove  that  slavery  is  recognised  in  the  Scriptures  just  as 
those  other  relations  are ;  that  the  duties  in  the  one  case 
are  prescribed  as  they  are  in  the  other  ;  and  that  this  re- 
lation in  society  is  designed  to  be  as  permanent,  and  is  in 
itself  as  lawful,  as  the  others.  It  is  undeniable  that  in  the 
relation  of  slavery  there  is  something  in  common  with  the 
relation  of  apprenticeship,  of  a  minor,  of  a  subject  under 
an  arbitrary  government,  of  those  who  are  transferred  from 
one  government  to  another,  as  "  by  the  treaty  of  Vienna,  a 
large  part  of  the  inhabitants  of  central  Europe  changed 
masters, — as  Saxony  was  transferred  to  Prussia,  Belgium 
was  annexed  to  Holland,  and  as  Louisiana  w^as  transferred 
from  France  to  the  United  States,"*  but  still  the  question  is, 
whether  the  peculiarity  of  slavery  is  found  in  all  these  rela- 
tions and  transfers  ?    In  the  condition  of  a  slave,  also,  there 

•  Bib.  Repertory,  1836,  p.  294. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVI.RY.  39 

is  some  resemblance  to  that  of  the  serf  of  Russia,  and  tlie 
♦villein'  under  the  feudal  system;  but  still  the  world  is 
accustomed  accurately  to  distinguish  their  condition  from 
that  of  slave,  and  it  does  not  define  slavery  to  say  that  it 
is  the  condition  of  a  serf  or  a  '  villein.'  There  is  still  some- 
thins;^  essential  to  it  which  is  not  reached  by  these  terms. 

The  importance  of  ascertaining  accurately  what  slavery 
is,  may  be  seen  by  referring  to  some  of  the  definitions 
which  have  been  given  of  it.  Frftm  these  it  will  be  seen  that, 
according  to  some  of  the  different  views  which  are  held  of  its 
nature,  it  is  easy  to  construct  an  argument  in  its  defence. 
Paley's  definition  is  this  :  "  I  define  slavery,"  says  he,  "to  be 
an  obligation  to  labour  for  the  benefit  of  the  master,  without 
the  contract  or  consent  of  the  servant."*  Substantially  the 
same  is  the  idea  of  the  author  of  the  article  before  referred  to 
in  the  Biblical  Repertory,  and  as  this  may  be  regarded,  with-^x^ 
out  impropriety,  as  expressing  the  sentiments  of  those  who 
apobgize  for  slavery,  or  who  regard  it  as  consistent  with 
Christianity,  it  is  important  to  quote  the  words  of  the  writer 
at  length.  He  says,  "  Neither  inadequate  remuneration, 
physical  discomfort,  intellectual  ignorance,  moral  degradation, 
is  essential  to  the  condition  of  a  slave.  Yet  if  all  these 
ideas  are  removed  from  the  commonly  received  notion  of 
slavery,  how  little  will  remain.  All  the  ideas  which  essen- 
tially enter  into  the  definition  of  slavery  are,  deprivation  of 
personal  liberty,  obligation  of  service  at  the  discretion  of  an- 
other, and  the  transferable  character  of  the  authority  and 
claim  of  the  master.  The  manner  in  which  men  are  brought 
into  this  condition ;  its  continuance,  and  the  means  adopted 
for  securing  the  authority  and  claim  of  masters,  are  all 
incidental  and  variable.  They  may  be  reasonable  or  un- 
reasonable, just  or  unjust,  at  different  times  and  places." — 
p.  279.  "  Slaver}',  in  itself  considered,  is  a  state  of  bond- 
age,  and   nothing   more.     It   is    the   condition   of  an   indi- 

•  Moral  Philosophy,  book  iii.  ch.  3. 


40  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

vidual  who  is  deprived  of  his  personal  liberty,  and  is 
obliged  to  work  for  another,  who  has  the  right  to  transfer 
this  claim  of  service,  at  pleasure." — p.  289.  In  discussing 
the  question  whether  the  nature  of  property  enters  into  the 
^  idea  of  slavery,  the  writer  rennarks  that,  "  a  man  has  pro- 
perty in  his  wife,  in  his  children,  in  his  domestic  animals, 
in  his  fields  and  forests,"  and  goes  on  to  observe  that, 
"  where  it  is  said  that  one  man  is  the  property  of  another, 
it  can  only  mean  that  the  one  has  a  right  to  use  the  other 
as  a  man,  but  not  as  a  brute  or  as  a  thing. — When  this 
idea  of  property  comes  to  be  analyzed,  it  is  found  to  be  no- 
thing more  than  a  claim  of  service  either  for  life,  or  for  a 
term  of  years.^^ — p.  293.  According  to  this  view,  slavery 
is  comparatively  a  harmless  thing.  No  one  should  be 
alarmed  at  the  idea  of  being  himself  a  slave,  or  of  having 
his  children  reduced  to  this  condition  ;  and  no  one  should 
regard  slavery  as  essentially  an  undesirable  condition  of 
society,  and  still  less  as  having  in  it  any  thing  that  is 
morally  wrong.     The  idea  of  regarding  a  slave  as  a  chattel 

Sor  a  thing  is  expressly  discarded,  and  all  the  property 
which  it  is  supposed  there  can  be  in  the  slave  is  that 
harmless  possession  which  a  man  has  in  his  wife  and  chil- 
dren. If  this  be  the  just  idea  of  slavery,  then  it  would 
hardly  be  worth  while  to  argue  the  question  whether  it  is 
right  or  wrong,  or  whether  it  is,  or  is  not,  in  accordance 
with  the  Bible.  It  may  be  remarked  here  only  that  this  is 
a  view  which  will  caJm  the  feehngs,  allay  the  suspicions  of 
guilt  or  responsibility,  save  from  the  compunctious  visitings 
of  remorse,  and  meet  the  wishes  of  all  those  south  of 
*  Mason's  and  Dixon's  hne'  who  desire  to  preserve  this 
domestic  institution  in  its  purity.  Whether  this  is  the  true 
notion  of  slavery,  however,  it  may  be  well  to  consider.  I 
would  observe,  then, 

(1.)  That  slavery  is  not  a  mere  condition  of  apprentice- 

'-  ship,  or  that  the  service  which  a  slave  is  bound  to  render 
to  his  master  is  not  that  which  the  apprentice  is  bound  to 


SCRIPTUILVL    VIEWS   OF    SLAVERY.  41 

render  to  his  employer.  Tliere  may  be  somethinc;  in  com- 
mon, but  all  men  make  a  distinction  between  them.  Even 
in  the  system  of  'apprenticeship'  in  the  West  Indies,  there 
was  an  accurate,  and  a  very  obvious  distinction,  between 
that  condition  and  the  state  of  slavery  which  this  was  in- 
tended to  supersede.  An  apprentice  is  bound  to  his  mas- 
ter;  he  works  for  him;  his  time  is  his;  and  the  master 
avails  himself  of  whatever  physical  strength  or  skill  the 
apprentice  may  have,  or  may  acquire  while  he  is  with  him 
— and  so  far  there  is  that  which  the  relation  has  in  com- 
mon with  slavery.  The  relations  resemble  each  other  also 
in  the  fact,  that  the  apprentice  is  usually  placed  in  this 
condition  without  being  consulted,  or  in  accordance  with  the 
will  of  another.  But  this  relation  is  designed  to  be  tem- 
porary ;  it  is  for  the  good  of  the  apprentice  himself;  it 
contemplates  his  own  future  usefulness  and  happiness,  and 
there  is  a  full  equivalent  supposed  to  be  rendered  for  his 
labour.  The  care  of  the  master  over  his  morals  and  habits, 
and  the  instruction  which  he  is  expected  to  receive  in  the 
employment  to  which  he  designs  to  devote  his  hfe,  are  re- 
garded as  an  ample  compensation  for  any  service  which  he 
can  render.  The  master,  in  fact,  avails  himself  of  no  un- 
requited labour  of  the  apprentice ;  has  no  claim  of  pro- 
perty in  hitn ;  has  no  power  to  continue  the  relation  be- 
yond a  specified  period ;  and  has  no  right  to  transfer  the 
apprentice  tcTlfnolhei*.  The  condition  is  one  also  that  is 
consistent  with  a  regular  advance  in  knowledge  of  all 
kinds,  and  in  which  the  master  has  no  control  over  any  of 
the  other  relations  which  the  apprentice  may  sustain,  or 
into  which  he  may  choose  prospectively  to  enter.  In  all 
this  it  differs  from  slavery, 

(2.)  Nor  is  slavery  to  be  confounded  with  the  condition 
of  a  7ninor.  There  are  many  things  indeed  that  are  com- 
mon between  slavery  as  it  has  always  existed,  and  the  con- 
dition of  those  who  are  under  age.  A  minor,  like  a  slave, 
has  no  right  to  vote ;   is    not    eligible  to  oflicc  ;    cannot   be 


42  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE  * 

held  in  law  by  contracts  which  he  makes,  and  in  his  time 
and  labour  is  subject  to  the  will  of  another.  But  we  never 
confound  the  two  conditions,  and  never  suppose  that  the 
description  of  the  one  is  a  correct  representation  of  the 
other.  Nature,  not  force,  has  made  the  condition  of  a 
minor.  In  the  arrangement,  his  own  good  is  consulted. 
The  whole  arrangement  is  with  reference  to  his  own  future 
welfare.  It  contemplates  his  being  ultimately  raised  to  all 
the  dignities  and  rights  of  a  citizen,  and  nature  has  secured, 
in  the  affections  of  those  under  whom  minors  are  commonly 
placed,  the  best  possible  pledge  that  their  interests  will  be 
sacredly  regarded.     Slavery  does  none  of  these  things. 

(8.)  Nor  is  slavery  merely  a  governmental  affair — an 
assertion  of  power  like  that  under  a  hereditary  monarchy,  or 
like  a  transfer  of  a  portion  of  a  people  from  one  government 
to  another,  by  treaty.*  There  may  be  much  in  common  be- 
tween such  a  condition  and  slavery,  but  Ave  never  confound 
them — except  where  we  wish  to  throw  dust  in  order  to  render 
the  subject  obscure.  The  authority  asserted  over  the  slave  is 
often  hereditary  ;  the  power  is  claimed  of  making  laws  for  him 
without  his  consent,  and  without  representation ;  the  power 
over  him  is  an  usurped  power;  it  deprives  him  of  the  rights 
of  a  freeman,  and  he  is  transferred  from  one  master  to  another 
without  his  consent — as  the  inhabitants  of  Poland,  Belgium, 
Louisiana,  Canada,  Florida,  and  Normandy  have  been,  or  as 
the  Cherokees,  Choctaws,  and  Seminoles  have  been  removed 
from  Georgia  and  Florida,  to  the  country  west  of  the  Missis- 
sippi. But  we  never  think  of  confounding  these  things  with 
slavery.  Slavery  is  the  right  of  an  individual  owner,  not  the 
operation  of  a  government.  It  is  control  over  the  individual, 
and  not  over  the  mass.  It  contemplates  properly  no  arrange- 
ment for  masses  as  governed,  but  of  individuals  as  oivned. 
It  transfers  none  by  communities,  but  sells  them  as  indivi- 
duals.    It  is  not  the  mere  power  of  making  laws  for  others, 

•  See  Biblical  Repertory,  1836,  p.  294, 


SCRIPTURAL    Views    OF    SLAVERY.  43 

or  of  commandinrr  their  services  for  war;  it  is  the  power  of 
controlling  their  time,  a  claim  on  their  whole  earnings,  and  of 
receiving  ull  the  avails  of  their  skill  and  lalx)iir.  It  is  not  the 
right  of  transfer  by  treaty  or  conquest,  but  the  power  to  sell 
them.  The  idea  of  slavery  is  not  that  of  suffering  the  de- 
privation of  rights  as  a  community,  but  as  individuals ;  and 
if  laws  are  ever  made  for  them  regarded  as  a  community,  it 
is  not  because  they  are  considered  as  any  part  of  the  govern- 
ment, but  only  to  guard  the  rights  of  those  who  own  them. 
In  every  essential  feature  slavery  is  removed  from  the  aspect 
of  being  a  governmental  affair ;  for  while  it  has  some  things 
in  common  with  such  an  arrangement,  still  the  world  makes 
an  accurate  distinction  between  them.  Besides,  it  would 
settle  nothing  as  to  the  question  of  right  and  wrong  to  show 
that  it  was  a  mere  governmental  transaction.  There  are 
great  questions  of  right  and  wrong  in  relation  to  the  govern- 
ment of  Nero,  and  the  conquests  of  Atlila,  and  the  authority 
claimed  by  the  Emj)eror  of  Morocco,  or  by  the  Sultan,  as  really 
as  in  relation  to  the  rights  claimed  by  the  master  over  the  slave. 

(4.)  Nor  is  it  a  mere  relation  in  which  legislative  bodies  alone 
are  concerned.*  It  has  indeed  a  relation  to  governments,  and 
the  makers  and  administrators  of  the  laws  have  much  to  do 
with  it.  It  is,  indeed,  a  relation  between  man  and  man — for 
the  slave  is  a  man,  and  is,  in  some  respects,  regarded  as  such. 
But  the  usual  relations  in  civil  life  are  those  of  compact 
and  agreement ;  of  buying  and  selling  ;  of  commerce,  appren- 
ticeship, marriage,  mutual  aid,  in  regard  to  which  each  party 
is  voluntary,  and  each  party  has  guarded  rights.  Nothing 
of  this  kind  occurs  in  slavery.  There  all  is  involuntary  on 
the  part  of  the  slave,  and  he  is  never  considered  and  treated 
as  a  nein"hbour,  or  an  equal.  In  no  respect  does  the  law 
regard  him  as  on  a  level  with  the  master. 

(5.)  Slavery  is  not  a  thing  which  pertains  wholly  to  a 
legislature  to  regulate,  and  with  which  an  individual,  or  an 

•  See  Biblical  Rrperton-,  1836,  p.  293. 


44  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

association  expressly  organized  for  that  purpose,  or  an  eccle- 
siastical body  have  no  right  to  interfere,  or  in  reference  to 
which  they  have  no  right  to  express  an  opinion.  There  are 
respects,  indeed,  in  which  the  subject  pertains  to  legislative 
bodies,  and  in  those  respects  others  cannot  interfere  with 
their  peculiar  prerogatives.  The  bad  laws  which  they  have 
made,  they  only  can  unmake.  The  actual  legislation  which 
may  be  at  any  time  demanded  to  remove  the  evil,  or  to  correct 
abuses  growing  out  of  the  laws,  pertains  only  to  them.  Others 
can  no  more  usurp  the  place  of  the  legislator,  in  respect  to 
this,  than  they  can  in  respect  to  any  thing  else.  But  the 
points  on  which  slavery  touches  on  the  legislative  body  are 
few  and  unimportant,  compared  with  its  other  relations  to 
societ}^.  Men  are  not  made  slaves  by  legislative  acts,  but  by 
individual  rapacity  and  wrong.  Legislatures  do  not  own 
slaves,  unless  it  be  in  a  corporate  capacity,  and  rarely  then. 
The  slave  is  the  property  of  an  individual,  and  his  relations 
are  to  him.  That  individual  is  a  man,  not  a  legislator ;  and 
it  is  right  to  reason  with  him  as  a  man,  as  a  neighbour,  as  a 
member  of  the  church,  as  a  father  and  a  brother,  or  as  a 
minister  of  the  gospel.  In  each  and  all  of  these  respects,  it 
is  right  to  bring  the  subject  before  his  conscience,  and  to  rea- 
son and  remonstrate  with  him,  as  himself  responsible  to  God. 
And  it  is  the  right  of  any  one  to  do  it  who  is  a  man,  whether 
in  his  individual  or  associate  capacity — for  the  slaveholder 
holds  a  man  in  bondage,  and  claims  him  as  his  property. 
Between  these  two  individuals,  therefore,  no  legislator  has 
a  right  to  interpose  a  barrier,  and  to  say  that  this  subject 
pertains  to  us,  and  that  no  individual  or  association  has  a  right 
to  intermeddle  with  it.  It  does  not  define  slavery,  therefore, 
to  say  that  it  is  a  relation  which  has  been  instituted  by  a 
legislature  for  the  good  of  the  community,  requiring  one  class 
of  people  to  engage  in  the  serv^ice  of  another. 

(6.)  Slavery  is  not  a  condition  Hke  that  of  the  serfs  of 
Russia,  or  like  the  '  villeins'  of  the  feudal  system.  It  has 
something  in  common   with   those   relations,   and  in  some 


SCRIPTURAL    Vir.WS    OF    SLAVKRV.  45 

aspects  may  not  l>e  more  oppressive  or  degrading,  but  still  it 
is  to  be  accumtely  distingnisliod  from  them.  In  the  relation 
of  the  *  villein'  of  the  feudiil  system  there  was  an  obligation 
of  service  to  the  lord  ;  the  time,  and  talent,  and  skill  of  the 
vassal  were  his ;  the  villein  had  none  of  the  rights  of  a  free- 
man, implied  in  the  power  of  making  laws,  eligibility  to  oHice, 
or  the  administration  of  justice  ;  and  there  was  the  possibility 
of  being  transferred  with  the  soil  from  one  master  to  another. 
The  same  is  substantially  true  of  the  condition  of  the  serf. 
But  the  '  villein'  was  attached  to  the  glebe,  as  the  serf  now  is. 
He  was  xi  fixture  on  the  estate,  and  he  could  not  be  removed. 
There  was  no  power  of  alienating  him  without  alienating  the 
land,  his  family,  his  neighbours,  and  whatever  comforts  he 
had  been  used  to.  There  was  no  power  of  separating  hus- 
band and  wife,  and  parents  and  children.  He  was  not. 
bought  and  sold  as  an  individual,  and  he  was  not  regarded  in 
the  light  of  property.  He  was,  in  some  respects,  recognised 
as  a  man,  and  even  in  his  lowest  condition  had  the  germs  of 
certain  rights,  which  have  grown  into  the  condition  of  the 
now  middle  and  respectable  classes  in  Europe.  "The  villein 
has  become  the  independent  farmer."  "  The  feudal  system 
has  in  a  great  measure  been  outgrown  in  all  the  European 
states.  The  third  estate,  formerly  hardly  recognised  as  hav- 
ing an  existence,  is  become  the  controlling  power  in  most  of 
those  ancient  communities."*  But  there  is  no  such  germ  of 
freedom  and  of  elevation  in  slavery.  There  is  nothing 
which,  being  cultivated  and  expanded,  will  grow  into  free- 
dom. There  was  nothing  in  slavery,  as  understood  by  the 
Romans,  and  there  is  nothing  in  it  as  it  exists  in  this  country, 
which  has  such  a  principle  of  liberty,  advancement,  and  eleva- 
tion, that  the  slave,  by  any  natural  progress,  can  ever  emerge 
into  hberty,  or  ever  lake  such  a  place  that  there  shall  be 
recognised  in  him  the  rights  of  a  man  ;  and  though  there  is 
in  the  system,  in  many  respects,  a  strong  resemblance  to  the 

•  See  Biblical  Repertory,  1836,  pp.  291,  300. 


46  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

condition  of  a  feudal  '  villein,'  or  a  Russian  serf,  yet  these 
conditions  are  never  confounded.  All  men  know  that  slavery 
is  a  different  thing.  Its  peculiarity  is  not  described  by  a 
reference  to  the  condition  of  society  in  the  dark  ages,  or 
under  the  dominion  of  the  Autocrat  of  the  North. 

(7.)  Slavery  is  not  the  kind  of  property  which  a  man 
has  in  his  wife  or  child.*  There  may  be  something  in  com- 
mon in  these  relations,  but,  except  in  arguments  in  defence 
of  slavery,  they  are  never  confounded.  In  the  condition 
of  a  wife  and  child  there  is  indeed  a  want  of  a  right  of 
suffrage  and  of  eligibility  to  office ;  and,  in  the  case  of 
the  child,  of  a  right  to  the  avails  of  his  labour,  as  in 
that  of  a  slave.  But  (l.)the  relation  of  parent  and  child 
is  a  natural  relation,  that  of  master  and  slave  is  not  ; 
(2.)  the  relation  of  husband  and  wife  is  voluntary,  that  of 
master  and  slave  is  not ;  (3.)  in  these  relations  wives  and 
children  are  treated  in  all  respects  as  human  beings, 
slaves  are  not ;  (4.)  in  these  relations  there  is  no  right 
of  property  in  any  such  sense  as  that  in  which  the  word 
property  is  commonly  used : — there  is  no  right  of  sale ; 
there  is  no  right  to  sunder  the  relation  for  the  mere  sake 
of  gain.  It  is  true  that  some  of  these  things  have  oc- 
curred in  certain  times  and  places,  and  that  the  power  of 
purchase  or  sale  has  been  understood  to  be  connected  with 
the  relation  of  husband  and  wife,  and  that  even  parents 
have  claimed  this  power  over  their  children.  But  this  has 
always  been  understood  as  an  abuse  of  power,  and  as  not 
fairly  implied  in  the  relation.  The  common  sense  of  man- 
kind has  revolted  at  it  ;  and  whatever  usurped  power  there 
may  have  been  at  any  time,  the  instinctive  feeling  of  man- 
kind is  that  the  'property'  which  a  man  has  in  his  wife 
or  child  is  essentially  different  from  that  which  the  master 
has  in  his  slave. 

If  none  of  these  things   constitute   slavery,  the  question 

•  Comp.  Bib.  Repertory,  1836,  p.  293. 


SCRIPTUIUVL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVERY.  47 

then  arises,  what  is  il  ?  What  is  the  essential  element 
of  the  system  ?  What  distinguishes  this  from  all  other 
relations  I  These  questions  can  now  be  answered  by  the 
single  reply,  that  it  is  property  in  a  human  being.  The 
master  owns  the  slave.  He  has  bought  him,  and  he  has 
a  right  to  use  him,  or  to  sell  him.  He  can  command  his 
services  against  his  own  will ;  he  can  avail  himself  of 
the  fruit  of  his  toil  and  skill  ;  he  can  sell  him  or  other- 
wise alienate  him  as  he  pleases.  He  regards  him  as  his 
own  property  in  the  same  sense  as  he  regards  any  thing 
else  as  his  property.  He  is  not  an  apprentice,  a  companion, 
an  equal,  or  a  voluntary  servant ;  he  is  a  part  of  his 
estate,  and  subject  substantially  to  the  same  laws  as  those 
which  regulate  property  in  any  thing  else.  He  is  his 
property  in  the  sense  that  either  by  himself,  or  by  one 
from  whom  he  has  inherited  him,  the  slave  has  been 
taken  by  force  and  appropriated  to  the  use  of  another  man — 
substantially  in  the  same  way  in  which  property  was  first 
acquired  by  cultivating  a  piece  of  land  selected  from  the 
great  common  of  the  world,  or  fruit  gathered  from  that 
which  was  before  common ;  or  he  has  become  his  pro- 
perty in  the  sense  that  an  equivalent  has  been  paid  for 
him,  or  from  the  fact  that  the  children  of  slaves  become 
property  in  the  same  way  as  the  offspring  of  cattle  do. 
He  is  his  property  in  the  sense  that  the  slave  himself 
has  no  right  to  the  employment  of  his  time  and  limbs 
and  skill  for  his  own  advantage,  and  no  right  to  the  avails 
of  his  own  labour.  He  is  his  property  in  the  sense  that 
the  master  claims  the  right  to  himself  of  all  that  the  slave 
can  produce  by  his  physical  strength,  or  by  any  tact  or 
skill  which  he  may  have  in  any  department  of  labour. 
He  is  his  property  in  the  sense  that  he  may  part  with 
his  services  to  any  one  on  such  terms  as  he,  and  not 
the  slave,  shall  choose ;  that  he  may  sell  him  for  any 
price  in  money,  or  barter  him  for  any  commodity,  to  any 
person   that   he   chooses ;    and   that  he  may  make  a  testa- 


48  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

mentary  disposition  of  him  as  he  may  of  his  house,  his 
land,  his  books,  his  cane,  or  his  horse.  This  was  the 
doctrine  of  the  Roman  law.  "  The  master  had  the  entire 
right  of  property  in  the  slave,  and  could  do  just  as  he 
pleased  with  his  person  and  life,  his  powers  and  his 
earnings."  Digesta  I.  19,  32.  Q,uod  attinet  ad  jus  civile, 
servi  pro  nidlis  habentur ;  non  tamen  et  jure  naturali, 
quia,  quod  ad  jus  naturale  attinet,  omnes  homines  aequales 
sunt.  IV.  5,  3.  Gluia  servile  caput  (civil  condition  of  a 
slave)  nullum  jus  habet,  ideo  nee  minui  potest.*  The 
same  was  true  in  Greece.  "  In  Greece  the  slave  was  con- 
sidered t^-^l^vxov  opyavoj;  or  a  xtijixa,  a  mere  instrument  en- 
dowed  V)ith  life,  a  possession.'*''^ 

It  is  true  that  this  kind  of  property  differs  in  some 
respects  from  other  kinds — as  property  in  a  horse  differs 
in  some  respects  from  property  in  a  tree  or  a  mine. 
Property  is  to  be  regarded,  in  some  aspects,  according  to 
the  nature  of  the  thing  which  is  held,  and  will  be  treated 
in  some  respects  according  to  its  nature.  The  ownership 
which  a  man  has  in  a  marble  quarry,  or  in  a  silver  mine, 
or  in  a  field  or  forest,  is  different  in  some  respects  from 
that  which  he  has  in  a  horse  or  a  dog ;  that  which  he 
has  in  the  latter  is  in  some  respects  different  from  that 
which  he  can  have  in  a  man.  It  wall  secure  a  different 
kind  of  treatment,  and  there  are  still  common  laws,  though 
these  are  held  as  property,  which  a  man  is  not  at  liberty 
to  disregard.  It  is  observed,  correctly  in  the  main,  by 
the  author  of  the  article  in  the  Biblical  Repertory  already 
referred  to  (p.  293),  that  a  man  "  has  no  more  right  to 
use  a  brute  as  a  log  of  wood,  in  virtue  of  the  right  of 
property,  than  he  has  to  use  a  man  as  a  brute.  There 
are  general  principles  of  rectitude  obligatory  on  all  men, 
which  require  them  to  treat  all  the  creatures  of  God,  ac- 

*  See  Prof.  G.  H.  Becker,  in  Bibliothcca  Sacra,  ii.  p.  571. 
f  Ibid.  p.  572. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVI.RY.  49 

cording  to  the  nature  wliicli  he  has  f^ivcn  them.  Tlie 
man  who  should  burn  his  horse  because  he  was  his  pro- 
perly, would  find  no  justification  in  that  plea  either  be- 
fore God  or  man.  When  therefore  it  is  said  that  one 
man  is  the  property  of  another,  it  can  only  mean  tliat 
the  one  has  the  ricfht  to  use  the  other  us  a  man^  but 
not  as  a  brute  or  a  thing.  He  has  no  right  to  treat  him 
as  he  may  lawfully  treat  his  ox  or  a  tree." — Still,  the 
essential  thing — the  right  of  property  is  the  same.  It  is 
ownership  of  the  quarry,  the  mine,  the  forest,  the  field, 
the  ox,  the  man; — and  though  the  treatment  must  in  pro- 
per respects  correspond  to  their  nature,  and  though  the 
community  may  feel  that  if  a  man  should  *burn'  his 
horse  he  would  violate  great  laws  of  nature,  still  this  docs 
not  afllct  the  question  whether  he  owns  the  horse  and 
has  a  right  to  regard  him  as  property.  The  same  is 
true  of  the  ownership  in  man.  There  are  certain  things 
which  it  is  admitted  the  owner  has  no  right  to  do,  which 
he  might  do  to  some  other  species  of  property.  He  may 
no  more  '  burn*  his  slave  than  he  may  his  '  horse  ;'  he 
might  not  treat  a  slave  in  all  respects  as  he  might  his 
horse,  any  more  than  he  might  treat  his  horse  as  he 
would  an  inanimate  object,  and  still  the  property  claimed 
in  the  one  may  be  as  distinct  and  exclusive  as  in  the 
other. — He  may  employ  him  as  he  pleases ;  he  may 
make  use  of  all  that  he  can  produce  by  his  labour  ;  he 
may  sell  him,  or  may  dispose  of  him,  as  he  chooses, 
in  his  will.  The  slave  is  never  regarded  as  a  human 
being,  with  the  rights  of  a  human  being,  but  he  is  re- 
garded as  property  made  more  valuable  because  he  is  a 
human  being — ^just  as  the  horse  is  regarded  as  property 
made  valuable  because  he  is  a  horse.  As  such  the  slave 
is  to  be  treated  as  a  man,  not  with  respect  to  any  duties 
or  relations  which  he  t)wes  as  a  citizen,  a  father,  a  son, 
an  heir  of  salvation,  but  only  with  reference  to  the  ques- 
tion,  how  he   can    be    rendered    more   valuable  as  a  slave. 

5 


50  AN    INQUIRY    INTO   THE 

His  nature  is  consulted  in  his  treatment,  in  distinction  from 
that  of  the  horse,  only  as  that  of  the  horse  is  consulted 
in  distinction  from  the  inanimate  objects  of  property. 

This  claim  of  property  in  the  slave  always  involves  the 
following  things : — 

1.  It  is  wholly  involuntary  on  the  part  of  the  slave. 
He  has  never  conceded  any  such  right  over  himself  to 
others,  and  no  one  has  done  it  who  had  any  authority 
to  do  it.  He  has  not  made  a  voluntary  surrender  of  him- 
self to  his  master  to  be  regarded  as  his ;  to  be  owned 
by  him,  and  to  yield  to  him  the  avails  of  his  labour,  and 
be  sold  by  him  when  and  where  he  pleases.  And  no  one 
has  done  this  who  had  a  right  to  do  it.  The  power  ori- 
ginally asserted  over  him  or  his  ancestors,  was  a  power  of 
Vsurpation  or  robbery  ;  was  against  his  consent  or  theirs ; 
and  was  successfully  asserted  only  because  he  had  not  the 
means  of  resistance.  It  was  that  which  no  parent  had  the 
prerogative  of  yielding,  and  which  in  most  instances  no 
parent  pretended  to  yield.  The  whole  system  is  involun- 
tary on  his  part,  and  the  property  which  is  claimed  in  his 
person,  his  services,  his  wife,  his  children,  was  never  the 
result  of  compact  or  voluntary  agreement. 

2.  It  is  property  claimed  in  that  which  naturally  belongs 
to  him,  but  which  he  is  not  at  liberty  to  resume  to  him- 
self. He  is  not  at  liberty  to  claim  a  property  in  his  own 
time,  person,  family,  bodily  vigour,  talent,  or  skill.  There 
may  be  instances — as  we  are  often  told  there  are  in  slave- 
holding  communities,  and  as  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt 
there  are — in  which,  from  kind  treatment  or  other  causes,  the 
slave  would  prefer  to  remain  with  his  master  than  to  take 
the  chances  of  freedom.  He  may  see  great  and  certain  evils 
which  would  result  if  he  were  thrown  upon  his  own  re- 
sources, if,  in  the  existing  state  of  society,  he  should  un- 
dertake to  provide  for  himself  and  his  family.  Or,  slavery 
may  have  so  effectually  accomplished  its  work,  by  destropng 
all  that  is  noble  in  his  nature,  that  he  prefers  to  be  a  slave 


SCRimiRAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVFUV.  51 

to  bt'ing  a  frccinan.  But  while  this  may  be  true,  lie  is  not 
at  liberty  to  do  otherwise  if  he  should  choose,  without  the 
consent  of  his  master.  He  has  no  independent  volition  in  the 
case.  A  horse,  if  he  had  a  choice,  might  prefer  to  remain 
the  property  of  his  owner  by  whom  he  was  well  taken  care  of, 
but  he  would  not  be  at  liberty  to  do  otherwise  if  he  chose. 

3.  There  is  a  right  of  ])roperty  in  all  that  pertains  to  the 
slave.  It  is  a  right  extending,  (l.)to  his  time.  The  slave 
can  claim  none  as  his  own.  The  hours  when  he  shall  begin 
his  work,  and  when  he  shall  close  it,  his  master  claims  the 
right  of  determining,  and  he  has  no  choice  in  the  case. 
('2.)  To  his  service.  "When  this  idea  of  property  comes  to 
be  analyzed,  it  is  found  to  be  nothing  more  than  a  claim  of 
service  either  for  life  or  for  a  term  of  years.  This  claim 
is  transferable,  and  is  of  the  nature  of  property,  and  is  con- 
sequently liable  for  the  debts  of  the  owner,  and  subject  to  his 
disposal  by  %\'ili  or  otherwise."*  There  is  "something 
more"  than  this  in  the  claim  of  property  claimed  in  the 
slave,  but  this  concession  shows,  what  indeed  no  one  would 
deny,  that  the  master  has  a  claim  of  ♦  service'  in  the  slave, 
which  is  of  the  nature  of  transferable  property.  (3.)  To 
his  bodily  strength  and  power  of  lalxjur.  The  master  asserts 
a  claim  over  these,  and  the  price  of  the  slave,  that  is,  the 
value  of  the  property  in  him,  is  estimated  in  accordance 
with  these  things.  Whatever  the  slave  has  of  youth, 
phvsical  power,  vigour  of  constitution,  capacity  for  enduring 
labour,  enters  into  the  notion  of  the  property  in  him — just 
as  much  as  the  metal,  speed,  bottom,  and  pedigree  of  the 
horse  does  of  hia  value.  (4.)  To  his  talent  or  skill.  If  he 
has  a  tact  for  labour ;  if  he  has  skill  in  any  of  the  mechanic 
arts  ;  if  he  has  genius  so  that  he  can  facilitate  or  abridge 
toil  by  useful  inventions,  it  is  all  the  property  of  the  master. 
He  is  the  more  valuable  on  that  account,  and  his  superior 
worth  is  often  published,  when  he  is  exposed  to  sale,  if  he 

•  Dib.  KriK-rtory,  j.p.  203,  2'JI. 


52  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

is  a  skilful  and  accomplished  house-servant,  or  if  he  is  en- 
dowed wiih  mechanical  talent.  He  has  no  right  to  avail 
himself  of  any  skill  which  he  may  have  in  making  a  shoe, 
a  carriage,  or  a  machine.  He  would  have  no  right  to  take 
out  a  patent  for  the  most  useful  invention ;  he  would  have 
no  right  to  enter  a  copyright  for  a  book.  Such  a  thing  is 
never  contemplated  in  the  laws  regulating  slavery,  and  if  a 
slave  had  any  such  endowment  it  w^ould  be  wholly  at  the 
disposal  of  the  master. 

4.  The  master  claims  this  right  of  property  in  his  services 
without  equivalent  or  compensation.  He  does  not  pretend  to 
have  given  him  any  valuable  consideration  for  the  surrender 
of  his  freedom,  and  he  furnishes  him  no  equivalent  for  his 
labour.  It  is  in  vain  to  say  that  the  food,  the  raiment,  and 
the  cottage  of  the  slave  are  any  equivalent  for  his  services, 
or  that  the  deficiency  of  these  is  made  up  by  the  implied 
pledge  of  the  master  that  he  will  furnish  him  with  medicine 
when  he  is  sick,  and  that  he  will  take  care  of  him  when  he 
is  old.  None  of  these  things  are  such  an  equivalent  for  his 
services  that  a  freeman  would  be  willing  to  contract  for  them 
by  seUing  himself  into  slavery;  they  are  not  what  a  freeman 
can  secure  by  voluntary  labour.  Besides,  slavery  is  of  neces- 
sity a  system  of  unrequited  toil.  The  master  expects  to 
make  something  by  the  slave ;  that  is,  he  expects  to  secure 
more  from  the  labour  of  the  slave  than  he  returns  to  him. 
The  whole  arrangement  of  the  system  contemplates  such  a 
profit  in  slave  labour,  or  such  an  increase  of  property  from  it 
over  and  above  what  the  slave  himself  receives,  as  to  meet 
the  following  expenses : — First,  the  interest  on  the  capital 
paid  for  the  slave — paid,  not  to  him,  but  to  the  one  from 
whom  he  is  purchased.  Secondly,  all  the  diminution  of  the 
worth  of  the  property  from  advancing  age,  from  the  proba- 
bilities of  sickness,  and  the  risk  of  death.  This  is  no  incon- 
siderable sum.  If  a  man  at  twenty-five  years  of  age  costs 
five  hundred  dollars,  his  value  is  constantly  diminishing  by 
advancing  age,  and  there  is  a  constant  risk  of  a  total  loss  of 


SCRITTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SI.AVIRY.  5^ 

the  property ;  and  to  make  a  return  to  the  master  for  this 
diminution  and  the  risk  of  the  total  loss,  there  must  be  in  the 
system  a  calculation  to  receive  from  the  labour  rendered  so 
much  over  and  above  what  the  slave  himself  receives,  as  to 
meet  the  chances  of  this  loss  and  this  regular  decrease  in 
his  value.  Thirdly,  there  must  be,  according  to  the  sys- 
tem, enough  received  from  the  labour  of  slaves  over  and 
above  what  they  receive,  to  support  the  master  and  his 
family,  so  far  as  any  advantage  is  derived  from  slave 
labour,  in  idleness,  and  usually  in  luxury — for  the  system 
always  has  been,  and  essentially  is,  one  of  luxury.  It  is 
not  designed  in  the  system  that  the  master  shall  labour.  He 
buys  his  slaves  in  order  that  he  and  his  family  may  not  be 
under  the  necessity  of  earning  any  thing.  The  consequence 
is,  that  there  is  contemplated  in  the  system  the  receipt  from 
the  labour  of  the  slave,  over  and  above  what  he  himself 
receives,  enough  to  maintain  the  master  himself  and  his 
family  in  indolence.  It  follows  from  this,  that  the  amount 
of  the  unrequited  labour  of  the  slave  on  the  whole  is  that 
which  is  necessary  to  meet  the  interest  on  the  cai>ital 
invested  in  him ;  that  which  is  necessary  to  meet  the 
regular  diminution  of  his  own  value  from  advancing  age 
and  the  risk  of  death  ;  and  that  part  of  his  individual  labour 
which  will  be  necessary  to  support  his  master.  Of  course, 
the  amount  involved  in  this  latter  item  will  be  regulated 
somewhat  by  the  number  of  slaves.  Each  slave  is  to  do  his 
part.  The  system,  is  to  support  all  the  masters  and  their 
families  in  indolence,  or,  at  least  so  far  as  the  system  avails, 
it  is  to  release  him  and  them  from  the  necessity  of  as  much 
labour  as  is  gained  from  the  unrequited  labour  of  the  slave. 
This  differs  wholly  from  a  free  system,  where  the  labourer 
receives  what  to  him  is  a  full  compensation  for  his  work. 
His  employer  has  invested  no  capital  in  the  person  of  the 
labourer;  makes  no  calculation  about  the  diminution  of  his 
value  or  risk  from  sickne>s  ;  and  does  not  contemplate  being 
supported   in   indolence   on    unrequited   labour.     lie    ^ivcs 


54  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

what  the  labourer  considers  a  full  equivalent  for  his  work ; 
he  receives  what  is  to  him  of  equal  value  with  the  wages. 

(5.)  This  possession  of  property  in  the  slave  involves  the 
right  to  sell  him  as  the  master  pleases.  It  is  not  a  right 
merely  to  dispose  of  his  service  for  a  term  of  years  or  for 
hfe  ;  it  is  a  right  to  sell  the  slave  himself.  He  sets  the  slave 
up  at  auction — not  his  services  ;  he  disposes  of  the  slave,  in 
his  will,  by  name — not  of  his  unexpired  term  of  service.  He 
disposes  of  his  person,  his  skiJl,  his  physical  strength — all 
that  he  has  that  can  be  of  value  to  himself  or  to  another. 
He  retains  nothing  to  himself;  he  reserves  no  rights  for  the 
slave.  This  disposal  o{ property  is  in  all  respects  as  absolute 
and  entire  as  it  is  where  a  man  sells  a  farm,  a  mill,  or  a 
horse.  He  may,  moreover,  sell  or  alienate  him  in  any  way 
he  pleases,  whether  by  a  priv^ate  bargain,  by  auction,  or  by  a 
testamentary  disposition — as  is  the  case  in  any  other  property. 
He  may  sell  him  by  sundering  any  ties  which  bind  him  to 
others  ;  regardless  of  any  remonstrances  of  father  or  mother ; 
and  irrespective  of  any  obligations  which  the  slave  may  feel 
himself  under  to  a  wife,  a  sister,  or  a  child.  "This  claim," 
says  the  Biblical  Repertory,  "is  transferable,  and  is  conse- 
quently liable  for  the  debts  of  the  owner,  and  subject  to  his 
disposal  by  will  or  otherwise."  This  is  the  common  view  of 
slavery  the  world  over,  and  on  the  subject  of  selling  him  the 
master  feels  himself  under  no  more  restrictions  than  he  does 
in  selling  his  dromedary  or  ox. 

That  these  are  correct  views  of  the  nature  of  slavery,  will 
be  apparent  from  a  brief  reference  to  some  of  the  existing  laws 
on  the  subject,  showing  in  what  light  slaves  are  regarded  in 
the  statutes  of  the  slaveholding  states  in  our  country.  Judge 
Stroud,  in  his  "  Sketch  of  the  Laws  respecting  Slavery," 
says,  "  The  cardinal  principle  of  slavery,  that  the  slave  is  not 
to  be  ranked  among  sentient  beings,  but  among  things — 
obtains  as  undoubted  law  in  all  these  [the  slave]  states." 
The  law  of  South  Carolina  says,  "  Slaves  shall  be  claimed, 
held,  taken,  reputed  and  adjudged  in  law,  to  be  chattels 


SCRIPTIRAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVERY.  55 

PERSONAL  ill  the  hands  of  llieir  owners  and  possessors,  and 
llieir  executors,  athiiinistrators,  and  assigns,  to  all  intknts, 

CONSTRl  CTIOXS,  AND  PURPOSES  WHATSOEVKR."*       The    Loilif^i- 

ana  code  says,  "A  slave  is  one  who  is  in  the  power  of  the 
master  to  whom  he  belonpfs ;  the  master  may  sell  him,  dis- 
pose of  liis  person,  his  industry,  and  his  labour ;  he  can  do 
nothing,  possess  nothing,  nor  acquire  any  thing  but  what 
must  belong  to  his  master."!  So  the  Hon.  J.  K.  Paulding, 
in  his  work  on  slavery,  says,  '*  Bi'ing  propertt/,  slaves  may 
be  bought  and  sold  by  persons  capable  of  buying  and  selling 
other  property.  They  are  held  to  be  personal  estate,J  and 
as  such  may  be  levied  upon  and  sold  for  the  debts  of  the 
owner."§ 

This  claim  of  property  is  not  only  asserted  in  all  the  books 
that  treat  of  slavery,  and  in  all  the  laws  that  regulate  the 
system,  but  enters  into  the  every-day  view  of  the  subject, 
and  the  practical  working  of  the  system.  As  a  matter  of 
fact  slaves  are  regarded  and  treated  as  property,  or  as 
"chattels."  They  are  bought  or  are  inherited  as  such. 
They  are  advertised  for  sale  by  auction,  or  otherwise,  as 
such.  They  are  disposed  of  by  will  as  such  ;  they  may 
be  seized  as  such,  by  a  sheriff^  and  sold  for  the  payment  of 
debts.  And  when  a  slave  is  so  disposed  of,  it  is  in  the  same 
way  as  any  other  property.  There  are  no  reserved  rights  to 
him  as  a  man.  There  is  no  specification  in  the  advertise- 
ment or  the  instrument  of  sale,  that  he  differs  from  any 
other  property ;  there  is  no  recognition  of  the  fact  that  in 
any  respect  he  is  a  human  being,  or  is  to  be  treated  as  such. 
There  is  no  condition  in  the  sale  that  any  of  his  rights  as  a 
man^  as  a  father,  a  brother,  or  a  citizen,  shall  be  regarded. 
It  is  not  specified  or  implied  that  he  shall  exercise  any  of  the 
privileges  of  a  freeman  ;  that  he  may  himself  ever  hold  pro- 
perty ;  that  he  shall  be  taught  to  read ;  that  the  cultivation 

•  Brev.  Dii?.  229.  f  Civ.  Code,  art  35. 

4  Rev.  Code,  vol.  i,  p.  431,  s.  47.  ^  P.  141.     See  aUo,  p.  145. 


56  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

of  his  intellect  shall  be  regarded  ;  that  he  shall  have  the 
hberty  of  worshipping  God.  None  of  his  rights  or  feelings 
as  a  son,  a  husband,  or  a  father  are  consulted  in  the  conditions 
of  the  sale,  but  his  new  master,  hke  his  old  one,  may  sunder 
any  one  of  these  relations  as  soon  as  he  pleases,  and  for  any 
cause  that  he  chooses. 

THE    TRUE    QUESTION    STATED. 

The  true  question  now  is,  whether  this  is  a  good  insti- 
tution, and  one  which  God  designed  to  commend  and  per- 
petuate. Is  it  an  institution  for  the  maintenance  of  which 
He  has  made  arrangements  in  his  word,  and  which  has  his 
sanction?  Is  it  a  system  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the 
rehgion  which  he  has  revealed,  and  which  that  religion  is 
intended  to  keep  up  in  the  world  ?  Is  it  such  an  arrange- 
ment in  society  that  the  fair  influence-  of  that  religion  will 
te»d  to  perpetuate  it,  as  it  wall  the  relations  of  husband  and 
wife,  and  of  parent  and  child  ?  Or  is  it  an  institution  which 
God  regards  as  undesirable  and  evil  in  its  nature  and  ten- 
dency, and  which  he  intends  to  have  removed  from  the 
world  ?  Would  the  fair  application  of  the  principles  of  his 
religion  perpetuate  it  on  the  earth,  or  remove  it  as  an  evil 
thing  ?  This  is  the  fair  question  now  before  us.  According 
to  the  references  made  to  the  Scriptures,  by  most  of  the 
writers  already  alluded  to,  they  would  regard  the  former  of 
these  opinions  as  the  true  one — that  slavery  has  the  sanc- 
tion of  God  ;  that  he  has  from  the  beginning  fostered  and 
patronised  the  institution ;  that  he  legislates  for  its  continu- 
ance, as  he  does  for  the  relation  of  parent  and  child  ;  and 
that  the  principles  of  his  religion  do  not  conflict  with  its 
perpetuity  on  the  earth.  Is  this  the  true  position  to  be  taken 
on  the  subject  ? 

In  this  view  of  the  real  question,  it  is  not  necessarj'"  to 
agitate  the  inquiry  whether  slavery  is  a  malum  in  se.  That 
question  is  one  that  has  usually  given  rise  only  to  perplexing 
logomachies,  and  that  has  contributed  little  to  determine  the 


SCRIPTURAL    VIF.WS    OF   SLAVERY.  57 

true  issue  in  the  inquiry.  If  it  shall  appear,  in  the  course  of 
this  discussion,  that  slavery  is  an  institution  which  God  has 
never  originated  by  positive  enactment ;  that  his  legislation 
has  tended  from  the  beginning  to  mitigate  its  evils;  that  he 
has  by  his  Providential  deahngs  frowned  upon  it ;  that  he 
has  asserted  great  princijiles  in  his  word,  which  cannot  be 
carried  out  without  destroying  the  system  ;  that  he  has 
enjoined  on  man,  in  tlie  various  relations  of  life,  certain 
duties,  of  which  slavery  prevents  the  performance ;  that 
slavery  engenders  inevitably  certain  bad  passions,  which  are 
\yholly  contrary  to  religion  ;  and  that  it  is  the  tendency  and 
the  desis^n  of  the  Christian  religion^  tvh en  fairly  applied^ 
to  abolish  the  system,  it  will  be  apparent  that  slavery  is  a 
moral  wrong.  God  does  not  legislate  against  any  thing  that 
is  good.  His  own  Providential  dealings  are  not  against  that 
which  is  desirable  in  society.  His  Gospel  is  not  designed 
to  abolish  any  good  institution  ;  and  if  it  shall  appear  that 
Christianity  has  such  provisions  as  are  designed  to  remove 
slavery,  the  divine  view  in  relation  to  it  will  be  clear.  To 
show  what  is  that  view,  is  the  sole  design  of  this  discussion. 


58 


AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 


CHAPTER  III. 

Slavery  in  the  time  of  the  Patriarchs, 

In  entering  directly  upon  the  question  whether  slavery,  as 
before  defined,  is  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  God,  and  is 
an  institution  which  he  designs  should  be  perpetuated  for 
the  good  of  society,  like  the  other  relations  of  life  contributing 
to  the  perfection  of  a  community,  it  is  natural  to  inquire 
whether  any  thing  can  be  determined  on  this  question  from 
the  practice  of  the  patriarchs.  The  true  inquiry  here  is, 
whether  the  patriarchs  were  holders  of  slaves  in  such  a 
sense  that  it  can  be  properly  inferred  that  God  regards 
slavery  as  a  good  and  desirable  institution. 

The  support  which  the  advocates  of  slavery  derive  from 
the  conduct  of  the  patriarchs,  has  already  been  referred  to. 
The  reader  will  recall  the  quotations  from  the  Presbyteries 
of  Hopewell,  Harmony,  Charleston  Union,  and  Tombecbee ; 
from  the  Biblical  Repertory,  and  Paulding's  work  on  slaver}'. 
The  example  of  the  patriarchs,  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob, 
is  adduced  as  decisive  on  the  point.  Thus,  as  an  instance, 
the  Presbytery  of  Tombecbee,  in  their  correspondence  with 
the  General  Conference  of  Maine,*  say,  "  On  the  subject  of 
slavery  we  are  willing  to  be  guided  by  the  Bible,  the  unerr- 
ing word  of  truth."  "  In  the  Bible  the  state  of  slavery  is 
clearly  recognised — Abraham,  the  friend  of  God,  had  slaves 
born  in  his  house,  and  bought  with  his  money.  Isaac  pos- 
sessed slaves,  as  is  evident  from  Gen.  xxvi.  14.  Jacob  held 
slaves,  without  the  least  remorse  of  conscience."  So  also  Dr. 
Fullert  appeals  with  the  utmost  confidence  to  the  fact  that 
God  indulged  Abraham  in  the  practice  of  slavery,  in  proof  that 

»  Pp.  12,  13.  \  Letters  to  Dr.  Way  land,  pp.  175,  176. 


SCRIPTURAL    Vir.WS    OF    SLAVKRV.  59 

it  is  not  wrong.  "IIo  was  'liie  friend  of  CIoJ,'  and  walked 
witli  God  in  the  closest  and  most  endearing  intercourse ;  nor 
can  any  thing  he  more  exquisitely  touching  than  those  words, 
♦  Shall  I  hide  from  Ahrahani  that  thing  which  1  do  V  It  is 
the  language  of  a  friend,  who  feels  that  concealment  would 
wrong  the  confidential  intimacy  existing.  The  love  of  this 
venerable  servant  of  God,  in  his  promptness  to  immolate  his 
son,  has  been  the  theme  of  apostles  and  preachers  for  ages  ; 
and  such  was  his  faith,  that  all  who  believe  are  called  'the 
children  of  faithful  Abraham.'  This  Abraham,  you  admit, 
held  slaves.  Who  is  surprised  that  Whitefield,  with  this 
single  fact  before  him,  could  not  believe  slavery  to  be  a  sin  ? 
Yet,  if  your  definition  of  slavery  be  correct,  holy  Abraham 
lived  all  his  life  in  the  commission  of  one  of  the  most  aggra- 
vated crimes  against  God  and  man  which  can  be  conceived. 
His  life  was  spent  in  outraging  the  rights  of  hundreds  of 
human  beinj^s,  as  moral,  intellectual,  immortal,  fallen  crea- 
tures; and  in  violating  their  relations  as  parents  and  children, 
and  husbands  and  wives.  And  God  not  only  connived  at 
this  appalling  iniquity,  but,  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision 
made  with  Abraham,  ex})ressly  mentions  it,  and  confirms  the 
patriarch  in  it ;  speaking  of  those  '  bought  with  his  money,' 
and  requiring  him  to  circumcise  them.  Why,  at  the  very 
first  blush,  every  Christian  will  cry  out  against  this  state- 
ment. To  this,  however,  you  must  come,  or  yield  your 
position ;  and  this  is  only  the  first  utterly  incredible  and 
monstrous  corollary  involved  in  the  assertion  that  slavery  is 
essentially  and  always  'a  sin  of  appalling  magnitude.'  " 

The  question  now  is,  whether  the  facts  stated  in  the  Bible, 
in  reference  to  the  conduct  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob, 
furnish  an  evidence  that  God  m(>ans  to  sanction  slavery',  and 
regards  it  as  an  institution  which  he  intends  should  be  per- 
petuated. It  is  whether  one  who  is  a  slaveholder  in  the 
I'nited  Slates,  in  the  manner  in  which  slavery  exists  here,  is 
justified  in  it  by  the  example  of  the  patriarchs. 

Now  those  who  make  their  appeal  to  the  patriarchs,  have 


60  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

not  informed  us  in  what  the  strength  of  the  argument  has, 
and  what  are  precisely  the  considerations  on  which  they  rest 
such  an  appeal.  It  is  possible,  therefore,  that  injustice  may 
be  done  them  in  an  attempt  to  state  what  they  would  consider 
the  true  force  of  the  argument.  So  far  as  I  can  see,  however, 
the  only  bearing  which  the  example  of  the  patriarchs  can 
have  on  the  question,  must  consist  in  the  following  consider- 
ations : 

1.  That,  in  the  cases  referred  to,  it  was  truly  and  properly 
slavery  which  was  sanctioned  by  their  example.  Whatever 
is  essential  to  slavery ;  whatever  constitutes  its  pecuharity, 
and  distinguishes  it  from  every  other  species  of  servitude, 
it  must  be  assumed  in  the  argument,  existed  under  the  patri- 
archs. In  an  attempt  to  prove  that  slavery  is  sanctioned  by 
their  example,  it  is  indispensable  to  show  that  the  slavery 
which  existed  then  was  essentially  the  same  as  that  which  it 
is  proposed  to  vindicate  by  it.  It  is  indispensable  to  make  out 
that  whatever  is  proposed  to  be  vindicated  by  the  example, 
should  be  found  in  the  example.  If,  therefore,  the  essential 
thing  in  slavery,  as  has  been  already  shown,  be  the  right  of 
property,  and  it  be  proposed  to  vindicate  or  justify  this,  it  is 
essential  to  show  that  this  idea  existed  in  the  kind  of  servi- 
tude recognised  among  the  patriarchs.  It  would  not  throw 
any  light  on  the  question,  if  the  condition  referred  to  was  one 
of  voluntary  servitude  ;  or  if  it  were  that  of  a  serf  or  'villein,' 
like  the  relation  in  Russia  or  under  the  feudal  system  ;  it 
must  involve  the  essential  thing  in  slavery  as  it  exists  now. 
It  is  necessarily  supposed,  therefore,  in  this  appeal  to  the 
patriarchs,  that  the  idea  of  property  in  a  human  being 
existed  in  those  cases,  or  the  argument  has  no  force  or 
pertinency.  And  that  this  is  supposed,  is  apparent  from 
the  argument  relied  on  by  the  Presbytery  of  Tombecbee: 
"Abram,  the  friend  of  God,  had  slaves  bought  with 
money. ''^ 

2.  That  the  patriarchs  were  good  men,  'the  friends  of 
God,*  and  that  we  are  safe  and  right  in  following  the  exam- 


SCRirXURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVF.UY.  61 

pie  of  such  men.  The  example  of  a  patriarch,  it  is  implied 
in  the  argument,  must  be  decisive.  Whatever  he  did,  cannot 
be  regarded  as  morally  wrong,  or  a  malum  in  se,  and  cannot 
be  improper  to  be  imitated  in  any  relation  of  society,  and  at 
any  period  of  the  world.  Unless  this  is  implied  in  the  appeal 
to  the  patriarchs,  the  argument  has  no  force.  For  if  it  be 
admitted  that  they  did  things  which  would  not  be  proper 
now  ;  that  they  indulged  in  any  thing  which  is  to  be  regard- 
ed £ls  a  malum  in  se,  or  that  they  entertained  views  Avhich 
are  not  adapted  to  promote  the  best  interests  of  society,  and 
which  God  does  not  design  to  have  perpetuated,  it  is  possible 
that  their  conduct  in  regard  to  servitude  may  belong  to  this 
class.  The  argument,  therefore,  supposes  that  what  they 
habitually  did,  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  malum  in  se,  or 
should  not  be  called  in  question  as  morally  wrong. 

3.  The  argument  must  involve  this  idea  also,  that  as  God 
permitted  it,  and  as  he  caused  their  conduct  to  be  recorded 
without  any  expression  of  disapprobation,  it  must  have  been 
therefore  right.  It  is  not  pretended  that  he  commanded  the 
purchase  of  slaves  in  the  time  of  the  patriarchs,  or  that  he 
commended  them  for  what  they  did.  The  argument  is 
based  on  his  silence  as  to  any  expression  of  disapprobation, 
and  on  his  causing  the  record  to  be  made.  The  strength  of 
this  argument,  then,  must  be,  that  whatever  God  permits 
among  good  men  at  any  time,  without  a  decided  expression 
of  disapprobation ;  whatever  he  causes  to  be  recorded  as  a 
matter  of  historical  fact,  must  be  regarded  as  authorizing 
the  same  thing  in  others,  and  as  a  proof  that  he  considers 
it  to  be  adapted  to  secure  the  best  interests  of  society. 

I  can  conceive  of  no  other  grounds  than  these  on  which  an 
argument  in  favour  of  slavery  can  be  derived  from  the  exam- 
ple of  the  patriarchs.  It  is  proposed  now  to  inquire  whether 
this  argument  is  vahd.  Does  it  demonstrate  what  it  is 
adduced  to  prove,  that  slavery  is  a  good  and  desirable  insti- 
tution ;  that  it  meets  with  the  approbation  of  God,  and  is  an 
institution  which  he  designs  should  be  perpetuated ;  and  that 

6 


62  AX    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

men  are  justified  in  holding  human  beings  as  property  now? 
In  reply  to  these  questions,  I  shall  consider  what  were  the 
facts  in  the  case  ;  and  then  what  is  the  real  value  of  the 
argument. 

(1.)  The  kind  of  servitude  referred  to  in  the  cases  of  the 
patriarchs  was  doubtless  common  at  that  time.  We  have, 
indeed,  no  historical  documents  to  prove  this,  for  we  have  no 
other  records  which  go  back  to  so  remote  ages.  But  there 
are  some  circumstances,  which,  in  the  absence  of  historical 
documents,  render  this  probable.  One  is,  that  in  the  age  of 
Job,  who  probably  lived  in  the  time  of  the  patriarchs,  the 
same  kind  of  servitude  is  mentioned  which  appears  to  have 
prevailed  in  the  days  of  Abraham.  Thus  in  chap.  i.  3,  it  is 
said  of  Job,  that  "he  had  a  very  great  household,^^  {pl^^V.t 
abuddd,)  where  the  ver\'  word  is  used  which,  in  various  forms, 
is  uniformly  employed  to  denote  servitude.*  This  does  not 
determine,  indeed,  that  those  referred  to  were  slaves;  but  it 
shows  that  the  kind  of  servitude  mentioned  in  the  account  of 
the  patriarchs,  prevailed  in  the  land  of  Uz,  that  is,  probably, 
in  Arabia  Deserta,  and  in  the  country  adjacent  to  Chaldea. 

(2.)  A  second  circumstance  is,  that  we  have  mention  of  an 
historical  fact  pertaining  to  those  times,  which  shows  that  the 
buying  and  selling  of  men  was  common.  Thus  when  it  was 
proposed  by  the  brethren  of  Joseph  to  sell  him  to  the  travel- 
ing Ishmaehtes  who  were  engaged  in  commerce,  they  made 
no  more  scruple  about  buyhig  him,  than  they  would  have 
done  any  thing  that  had  been  offered  for  sale  ;  and  the  same 
thing  occurred  Avhen  he  was  exposed  for  sale  by  them  in 
the  Egyptian  market.  He  was  readily  bought  by  Potiphar, 
Gen.  xxxvii.  27,  28;  xxxix.  1.  This  whole  transaction  looks 
as  if  the  buying  and  selling  of  men  was  then  a  common  thing, 
and  was  as  allowable  as  any  other  species  of  traffic. 

(3.)  A  third  circumstance  is,  that  servants  appear  to  have 
been  in  the  market,  or  to  have  been  held  by  those  who  dwelt 

•Gen.  xxyi.  14;  xxx.  26;  xii.  16;  xvii.  23;  xxxix.  17,  cf  ai. 


SCKIl'TUKAL    VIEWS    UK    SLAVKUY.  X>6 

in  the  viciuity  of  Abraham,  for  it  is  said  that  he  liacl  "ser- 
vants bous^ht  with  money/*  Gen.  xvii.  12.  This  would 
seem  to  show  that  they  were  held  for  sale  by  others,  that  is, 
that  servitude  of  this  kind  prevailed  there. 

(4.)  The  fourth  circumstance  is,  that  as  far  back  as  we  can 
trace  the  history  of  nations,  we  find  the  existence  of  slavery 
in  some  form.  We  find  it  represented  in  the  historical  paint- 
ings of  Egypt,  where  nothing  is  more  common  than  drawings 
of  slaves  or  captives.  We  find  it  in  the  earliest  stages  of  the 
history  of  Greece  and  Rome.  We  find  it  in  the  practice  of 
conquerors,  who  were  accustomed  to  regard  the  captives 
taken  in  war  as  the  property  of  the  captors,  and  who  were 
supposed  to  have  a  right  to  kill  them,  to  sell  thern,  or  to 
retain  them  as  slaves  at  their  pleasure.  We  find  it  in  the 
earliest  laws,  and  in  the  claims  set  up  under  those  laws  to 
certain  persons  held  to  servitude.  Those  laws  are  but  the 
expressions  of  the  early  opinions  on  the  subject,  and  an 
exponent  of  the  prevailing  practice.  Thus  these  causes  are 
assigned  by  Justinian  as  laying  a  foundation  for  slavery,  or 
as  making  the  enslaving  of  others  proper.  Servi  aid  Jiunt, 
aut  nascuntur:  fiunt  jure  gentium,  aut  jure  civili:  nas- 
cuntur  ex  ancillis  nostris.*  According  to  this,  slaves  are 
said  to  become  such  in  three  ways :  by  birth,  where  the  mo- 
ther was  a  slave  ;  by  captivity  in  war ;  and  by  the  voluntary 
sale  of  himself  as  a  slave  by  a  freeman  of  the  age  of  twenty. 
Blackstone  examines  these  causes  of  slavery,  and  shows  them 
all  to  rest  on  uncertain  foundations ;  and  he  insists  that  a  state 
of  slavery  is  repugnant  to  reason,  and  contrary  to  natural 
law.t  The  foundation  of  this  claim  was  undoubtedly  wrong; 
but  the  fact  that  it  was  made,  shows  the  state  of  feeling  in 
the  earliest  times,  and  may  be  regarded  as  proof  that  slavery 
prevailed  in  the  remotest  periods  of  the  world.  Whatever 
may  be  said,  therefore,  about  the  state  of  servitude  in  the 

•  Just  1,  3,  4. 

I  Comm.  i.  423, 42'!.  Comp.  Kcnt'b  Commentaries  on  American  Law, 
i.  427,  seq. 


64  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

time  of  the  patriarchs,  and  whatever  conclusions  may  be 
drawn  from  the  fact  that  they  held  slaves,  it  cannot  be  held 
that  they  originated  the  system.  It  was  a  system  which 
they  doubtless  found  in  existence,  and  they  acted  only  in 
accordance  with  the  customs  of  all  the  surrounding  nations. 

In  order  now  adequately  to  understand  what  was  the  real 
character  of  the  servitude  which  existed  among  the  patri- 
archs, on  which  so  much  reliance  is  placed  by  those  who 
attempt  to  sustain  the  system  by  an  appeal  to  the  Bible,  it  is 
of  the  utmost  importance  to  understand  what  is  the  exact 
sense  of  the  word  used  to  designate  this  relation  in  the 
Scriptures.  If  the  word  rendered  servant  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment necessarily  means  slaves  in  the  modern  sense  of  the 
term,  it  will  do  something  to  settle  the  question  whether 
slavery  as  it  now  exists  is  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  God. 
It  must  be  assumed  by  those  who  bring  the  example  of  the 
patriarchs  in  support  of  slavery,  that  the  word  had  the  same 
signification  then  which  it  has  now  ;  for  if  the  word,  as  used 
in  their  times,  meant  an  essentially  different  thing  from  what 
it  does  now,  it  is  obvious  that  its  use  furnishes  no  argument 
in  support  of  slavery. 

The  Greeks,  accustomed  to  exact  distinctions,  and  favoured 
with  a  language  so  refined  as  to  distinguish  the  nicest  shades 
of  thought,  discriminated  accurately  between  various  kinds 
of  servitude,  and  designated  those  relations  in  a  way  which 
is  not  common  in  other  languages.  To  serve  in  general, 
without  reference  to  the  manner  in  which  the  obligation  to 
service  originated,  whether  by  purchase,  by  contract,  by  being 
made  a  captive  in  war,  as  a  subject,  a  dependent,  they  ex- 
pressed by  the  word  bovT^vu — douleuo  ;  to  serve  as  a  soldier 
for  reward,  or  to  serve  the  god^,  they  expressed  by  the  word 
xarpsvw — latreuo,  [Passow);  to  serve  as  a  domestic  or  house- 
hold servant,  under  whatever  manner  the  obligation  arose,  they 
expressed  by  the  word  oixittvui — oiketeuo ;  .to  serve  in  the 
capacity  of  a  hired  man,  or  for  pay  in  any  capacity,  they  ex- 


SCllIPTrRAL    VIEWS    OK    SLAVKUV.  66 

pressed  by  the  \vord  fxia^i-t^misthoo  ;  to  serve  in  the  capa- 
city of  an  attendant  or  waiter,  especially  at  a  door,  they 
expressed  by  the  word  inaxovu^—hypakoud,  [Passow).  The 
proper  word  to  denote  a  slave,  with  reference  to  the  master's 
right  of  property  in  him,  and  without  regard  to  the  relations 
and  ollices  in  which  he  was  employed,  was  not  Bolxoi — dou- 
losj  but  ay8f>drto6ov — widrupodoiu  defined  by  Passow,  Sklai\ 
Knethty  bes.  der  durch  Kriegsgcfangenscliaft  in  Leibeigen- 
schaft  Gcrathnc — 'a  slave,  servant,  especially  one  who  as  a 
prisoner  of  war  is  reduced  to  bondage.'*  Hence  the  Greeks 
used  the  term  fioixoj — doulos,  to  express  servitude  in  the 
most  general  form^  whatever  might  be  the  method  by  which 
the  obligation  to  service  originated.  They  used  the  term 
a>b^7iobov — andrapodon,  to  denote  a  slave  regarded  as  pro- 
perty ;  the  term  ifiJji — dmds^  also,  to  denote  a  slave  as  one 
conquered^  or  as  primarily  made  by  capture  in  war ;  t  the 
terms  oixfvi — oikeus,  |  olxitT;^ — oikcfcs,  to  denote-  a  household 
servant ;  the  term  Iftr^xooi — hypckoos^  to  denote  an  attendant, 
a  waiter;  the  term  ^'o^toj — jnisthios,  to  denote  a  hired  man, 
or  a  labourer  in  the  employ  of  another;  and  the  word  xarpt? 
— /a/m,  to  denote  one  who  served  for  pay,  as  a  soldier. 
That  6)0^i — dou/os  might  be  a  slave,  and  that  the  word  is 
most  commonly  applied  to  slaves  in  the  classic  writers,  and 
frequently  in  the  New  Testament,  no  one  can  doubt ;  but  its 
mere  use  in  any  case  does  not  of  necessity  denote  the  relation 
sustained,  or  make  it  proper  to  infer  that  he  to  whom  it  is 
applied  was  bought  with  money,  or  held  as  property,  or  even 
in  any  way  regarded  as  a  slave.  It  might  be  true  also  that 
the  various  terms  doiilos,  dmos,  andrapodon,  oikctes,  and 
possibly  hypekoos,  might  all  be  applied  to  persons  who  had 
been  obtained  in  the  same  way — either  by  purchase,  or  by 
being  made  prisoners  in  war  ;  but  these  terms,  except  those  of 

•  Comp.  Prof.  G.  W.  Becker,  in  the  Bildiothcca  f?acra,  vol.  ii.  p.  56'J 
■\  Od.  i.  398 ;  n>.  xix.  9,  333,  (Crtwiia,  Lex,) 
4  ad.  xiv.  4,  iv.  215. 

6* 


66  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

andrapodon and  dmdsjwould  not  designate  the  origin  of  the 
relation,  or  the  nature  of  the  tenure  by  which  the  servant  was 
bound.  The  words  used  in  our  language — servant^  slave^ 
waiter^  hired  man,  though  not  marking  the  relations  with 
quite  as  much  accuracy  as  the  Greek  words,  will  indicate 
somewhat  the  nature  of  the  distinctions.  It  may  be  proper 
to  add,  that  the  word  doidos,  as  remarked  above,  is  frequently 
used  in  the  New  Testament,  being  found  one  hundred  and 
twenty-two  times;*  the  word  otxfVijs — oiketes,  occurs  four 
times,  in  three  places  rendered  servant — and  in  one  house- 
hold servant:  Luke  xvi.  13,  "No  servant  can  serve  two 
masters ;"  Acts  x.  7,  "  He  called  two  of  his  household  ser- 
vants ^^^  Rom.  xiv.  4,  "  That  judgest  another  man's  servant;^* 
and  1  Pet.  ii.  18,  "  Servants,  be  subject  to  your  masters ;" 
the  word  /ua^tof — misthios,  occurs  in  Luke  xv.  17,  19,  in 
both  places  rendered  hired  servants, — "  yow  many  hired 
servants  of  my  father's," — "  Make  me  as  one  of  thy  hired 
servants  /"  the  word  vrC/xoos — hypekoos,  occurs  in  Acts  vii. 
39,  2  Cor.  ii.  9,  Phil.  ii.  8,  in  each  case  rendered  obedient ; 
the  word  xatpu — lalris,  does  not  occur,  though  the  word 
xafptta — latreia,  service,  and  Tair-pavw — latreuo,  to  serve,  fre- 
quently occur,  applied  in  all  cases  to  religious  service ;  and 

*  «  According  to  Greenfield's  Schmidius,  the  word  doidos  occurs  122 
times  in  the  New  Testament.  Of  these,  1 9  are  paredlel ;  and  the  remain- 
ing 103  may  be  classed  as  follows : 

1.  Applied  to  servjmts  of  men ; 
[1]  Of  Jewish  masters, 
[2]   Of  masters  generally  without  distinction, 
[3]   Of  a  Gentile  master,  [Mat.  viii.  9,] 
[4]  To  Christians  as  servants  of  each  other,  [Mat.  xx.  27, 

2  Cor.  iv.  5,] 

2.  To  the  servants  of  God  and  Christ, 

3.  To  Christ  as  the  servant  of  God,  [Phil.  ii.  7,] 

4.  To  the  servants  of  sin  and  Satan, 
6.  Used  indefinitely,  [Rom.  vi.  16,] 
6.  To  those  •  under  the  elements  of  the  world.'  [Gal.  iv.,] 

1[q3' 


47 

times. 

18 

« 

1 

" 

2 

<( 

28 

(( 

1 

« 

4 

M 

1 

« 

1 

U 

SCRirTl'RAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  67 

the  word  ai-5parto6ov — andrapodoii,  which  peculiarly  denotes 
slavery,  does  not  occur  at  all,  though  the  correlative  word 
<u6parto6t5rr? — ani/rftpodinfrt,  occurs  once  (1  Tim.  i.  10)  with 
the  most  marked  disapprobation  of  the  thing  denoted  by  it : — 
»♦  The  law  is  made  for  murderers  of  fathers  and  murderers  of 
mothers,  for  manslayers,  for  whoremongers,  for  men-stealcrSy 
for  liars,"  &c. 

The  Hebrews  made  no  such  minute  distinctions  as  the 
Greeks  did.  Their  language  was  less  cultivated,  and  much 
loss  adapted  to  express  nice  discriminations  of  thought.  They 
used  but  one  word,  13>'  ebcd/t,  to  express  all  the  relations  of 
servitude — somewhat  as  the  word  servant  is  used  in  the 
slavtholding  states  of  our  own  country.  Among  the  He- 
brews, however,  the  word  was  used  as  expressing,  with  pro- 
priety, the  relations  sustained  ;  in  a  slaveholding  commnnit}'' 
it  is  adopted  as  a  mild  term  to  avoid  the  use  of  the  odious 
and  offensive  term  slave. 

The  Hebrew  words  12];  ebedh,  7^•V2^\  abodhd,  and  ryyiv 
abudda^  rendered  commonly  servant,  service,  and  servants, 
(Job  i.  3,)  are  derived  from  l^i*  abddh,  meaning  to  labour,  to 
work,  to  do  work.  It  occurs  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  some 
hundreds  of  times  in  various  forms  of  the  word,  and  is  never 
rendered  slaves,  but  commonly  servants,  and  serve.  Occa- 
sionally the  words  derived  from  the  verb  are  rendered  bond- 
man, or  bond-servant,  Lev.  xxv.  30,  42,  44 ;  Josh.  ix.  2^3 ; 
1  Kings  ix.  22.  The  verb  and  the  nouns  derived  from  it  are 
applied  to  any  and  every  kind  of  service  or  servitude  which 
one  can  render  to  another.  The  ideas  of  working  for  an- 
other, ministering  to  another,  being  bound  to  another,  being 
tributary  to  another,  offering  homage  to  another,  will  all  be 
found  embraced  in  this  word.  The  essential  significations 
in  the  use  of  the  word  are  (l.)to  labour  or  work,  Avithout 
respect  to  the  question  who  it  is  for,  and  (2.)  to  render  service 
to  another ;  that  is,  to  be  subject  to  him,  and  to  act  irith 
reference  to  his  will.  In  accordance  with  this,  the  word,  in 
various  forms,  is  used  to  denote  the  following  kinds  of  service : 


68  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

(l.)To  work  for  another,  Gen.  xxix.  20,  xxvii.  40,  xxix.  15, 
XXX.  26,  1  Sam.  iv.  9.  (2.)  To  serve  or  be  servants  of  a 
king,  2  Sam.  xvi.  19,  Gen.  xl.  20,  xli.  10,  37,  38,  1.  7,  Ex. 
V.  21,  vii.  10,  X.  7.  (3)  To  serve  as  a  soldier,  2  Sam.  ii. 
12,  13,  15,  30,  31,  iii.  22,  viii.  7,  et  saepe.  (4.)  To  serve  as 
an  ambassador,  2  Sam.  x.  2 — 4.  (5.)  To  serve  as  a  people  ; 
that  is,  when  one  people  were  subject  to  another,  or  tributary 
to  another,  Gen.  xiv.  4,  xv.  14,  xxv.  23,  Isa.  xix.  23,  Gen. 
XV.  13,  ix.  26,  27,  xxvii.  37.  (6.)  To  serve  God,  or  idols, 
Ex.  iii.  12,  ix.  1,  13,  Deut.  iv.  19,  viii.  19.  Under  this  head 
the  word  is  often  used  in  the  sense  of  'the  servant  of  Je- 
HovAH,'  appHed  (a)  to  a  worshipper  of  the  true  God,  Neh.  i. 
10,  Ezra  v.  11,  Dan.  vi.  21,  et  saepe;  (6)  a  mmister,  or 
ambassador  of  God,  Isa.  xlix.  6,  Jer.  xxv.  9,  xxvii.  6,  xliii. 
10,  Deut.  xxxiv;  5,  Josh.  i.  1,  Ps.  cv.  26,  Isa.  xx.  3. 
(7)  The  word  is  often  employed  to  denote  a  servant,  whether 
hired,  bought,  or  inherited, — one  who  was  involuntarily  held 
to  service  to  another.  In  this  sense  it  is  frequently  used  in 
the  laws  of  Moses  ;  for  all  the  kinds  of  servitude  which  are 
referred  to  there,  are  designated  by  this  term.  As  already 
observed,  the  Hebrews  did  not  make  distinctions  between  the 
various  kinds  of  service  with  the  accuracy  of  the  Greeks. 
So  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  ascertain,  they  made  no  distinc- 
tions of  that  kind,  except  that  in  later  times  they  made  use  of 
one  other  term  besides  "^^V  ebedh,  which  was  ^2':^  sdkir, 
one  hired  ;  a  hired  labourer;  one  to  whom  wages  was  paid, 
Ex.  xii.  45,  xxii.  14,  Lev.  xix.  13,  Isa.  xvi.  14,  Job  vii.  1. 
In  one  passage  in  Job  (vii.  2,  3)  the  two  words  occur  in  the 
same  verse,  where  the  distinction  is  marked,  and  yet  so  as, 
by  the  parallelism,  to  show  that  the  persons  referred  to  were 
regarded  as  in  some  respects  on  a  level. 

"As  a  servant — l^r  ebedh — earnestly  desireth  the  shadow, 
"  And  as  an  hireling — y^'^  sdkir — looketh  for  the  reward 

of  his  work, 
"  So  am  I  made  to  possess  vanity, 
"  And  wearisome  nights  are  appointed  to  me.' 


SriUrTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVKRV.  6^ 

Tliert'  were,  indeed,  in  the  Hebrew  lang^nan^e,  two  words 
which  denoted  exclusively  female  domottics  or  servants, 
which  may  be  rec^arded  as  a  refinement  peculiar  to  them.  1 
do  not  know  that  it  occurs  often  in  other  languages.  Xeiilier 
of  these  words,  however,  were  designed,  so  far  as  I  can  per- 
ceive, to  denote  the  kind  of  scrviec  which  was  to  be  rendered, 
but  only  to  mark  the  distinction  of  sex.  The  female  servant 
thus  designated  might  either  be  hired,  or  bought,  or  inherited, 
or  be  a  captive  taken  in  war.  Their  condition  seems  to  have 
partaken  of  the  general  nature  of  servitude,  though  for  what 
reason  a  distinctive  name  was  given  to  them  is  not  certainly 
known.  One  of  the  names  used  was  n.'DX,  ama^  rendered 
maid-servant,  Ex.  xx.  10,  xxi.  7,  32,  Job  xxxi.  13,  Deut. 
xv.  17;  hond-maid,  Lev.  xxv.  41;  bond-woman,  Gen.  xxi. 
10,  12,  13 ;  maid.  Gen.  xxx.  3,  Lev.  xxv.  6,  Ex.  ii.  5,  Job 
xix.  15,  Nah.  ii.  7;  hand-maid,  Ex.  xxiii.  12,  Ruth  iii.  9, 
1  Sam.  i.  11,  xxv.  24,  and  often  ; — and  the  other  name  was 
nniJiy,  Slnphhhd,  rendered  hand-maid.  Gen.  xvi.  1,  xxix. 
24,  Prov.  xxx.  23,  Gen.  xxv.  12,  xxxv.  25,  26;  bond-maid. 
Lev.  xix.  20;  maiden,  Ps.  cxxiii.  2;  women-servants,  Gen. 
xxxii.  5,  6;  maid-servant,  Ex.  xi.  5,  1  Sam.  viii.  1(5,  Gen. 
xii.  10,  xxiv.  35,  xxx.  43;  wench,  2  Sam.  xvii.  17;  and 
servant,  1  Sam.  xxv.  41.  The  distinction  between  these  two 
words  aj)plied  to  female  servants,  it  is  probably  impossible 
now  to  mark. 

From  this  examination  of  the  terms  used  to  denote  servi- 
tude among  the  Hebrews,  it  follows  tliat  nothing  can  be  in- 
ferred from  the  mere  use  of  the  vjord  in  regard  to  the  kind 
of  servitude  which  existed  in  the  days  of  the  patriarchs. 
The  conclusions  which  would  be  fair  from  the  use  of  the 
word,  would  be  these,  (l.)That  any  service,  whether  hired 
labour,  or  that  rendered  by  one  who  was  bought;  whether 
that  of  a  freeman  or  a  slave  ;  whether  in  the  house  or  the 
field,  would  Vm  properly  expressed  by  the  use  of  the  Hebrew 
word.  (2.)  That  at  any  period  of  their  history  the  word 
denoted  servitude  as  it  then  existed,  and  its  meaning  in  any 


70  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

particular  age  is  to  be  sought  from  a  knowledge  of  the  kind 
of  servitude  which  then  actually  prevailed.  We  can  ascer- 
tain the  meaning  of  the  word  from  the  facts  in  the  case ; 
not  the  nature  of  the  facts  from  the  use  of  the  word.  If  the 
kind  of  servitude  existed  which  does  now  in  England,  and  to 
which  the  word  servant  is  applied,  it  would  accurately  express 
that ;  if  the  kind  which  existed  under  the  feudal  system, 
it  would  express  that;  if  the  kind  which  exists  in  Russia, 
it  would  express  that;  and  if  such  a  kind  as  exists  in  the 
Southern  states  of  this  Union,  it  would  express  that.  (8.)  The 
word  might,  therefore,  denote  slavery,  if  slavery  at  any  time 
existed.  The  Hebrews  would  not  have  been  under  a  neces- 
sity of  forming  a  new  word  to  denote  that  relation,  but  the 
term  in  actual  use  would  have  covered  the  whole  ground, 
and  would  easily  adapt  itself  to  the  actual  state  of  things. 
But  (4.)  it  did  not  necessarily  denote  that,  and  that  signifi- 
cation is  not  to  be  given  to  it  in  any  case  unless  it  is  clear, 
from  other  sources  than  from  the  use  of  the  word,  that 
slavery  was  intended.  It  might  mean  many  other  things, 
and  it  is  not  a  correct  method  of  interpretation  to  infer  that 
because  this  word  is  used,  that  therefore  slavery  existed. 

It  follows  from  this,  that  the  mere  use  of  the  word  m  the 
time  of  the  patriarchs,  determines  nothing  in  the  issue  before 
us.  It  does  not  prove  either  that  slavery  existed  then,  or 
that  it  is  lawful.  For  any  thing  that  can  be  learned  from 
the  mere  use  of  the  v;ord,  the  kind  of  servitude  then  existing 
may  have  had  none  of  the  essential  elements  of  slavery. 

This  inquiry  into  the  meaning  of  the  word  will  be  of  use 
through  the  whole  discussion,  for  it  is  important  to  bear  in 
remembrance  that  this  use  of  the  term  nowhere  in  the  Scrip- 
tures of  necessity  implies  slavery. 

(3.)  Some  of  the  servants  held  by  the  patriarchs  were 
*  bought  with  money.^  Much  reliance  is  laid  on  this  by  the 
advocates  of  slavery,  in  justifying  the  purchase,  and  conse- 
quently, as  they  seem  to  reason,  the  sale  of  slaves  now ;  and 
it  is,  therefore,  of  importance  to  inquire  how  far  the  fact 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVF.RY.  71 

Stated  is  a  justification  of  slavery  as  it  exists  at  present. 
But  one  instance  occurs  in  the  case  of  the  patriarchs,  where 
it  is  said  that  servants  were  '  bought  "vviih  money.'  This  is 
the  case  of  Abraham,  Gen.  xvii.  12,  13:  "And  he  that  is 
eight  days  old  shall  be  circumcised  among  you,  every  man- 
child  in  your  p^enerations ;  he  that  is  bom  in  the  house,  or 
bought  irith  money  of  any  stranger,  which  is  not  of  thy 
seed ;  he  that  is  born  in  thy  house,  and  he  that  is  bought 
ttith  thy  money,  must  needs  be  circumcised."  Comp.  vs.  2:^, 
27.  This  is  the  only  instance  in  which  there  is  mention  of 
the  fact  that  any  one  of  the  patriarchs  had  persons  in  their 
employment  who  were  bought  with  money.  The  only  other 
case  which  occurs  at  that  period  of  the  world  is  that  of  the  sale 
of  Joseph,  first  to  the  Ishmaelites,  and  then  to  the  Egyptians 
— a  case  which,  it  is  believed,  has  too  close  a  resemblance  to 
slavery  as  it  exists  in  our  own  countr}',  ever  to  be  referred  to 
with  much  satisfaction  by  the  advocates  of  the  system.  In 
the  case,  moreover,  of  Abraham,  it  should  be  remembered 
that  it  is  the  record  of  a  mere  fact.  There  is  no  command 
to  buy  servants  or  to  sell  them,  or  to  hold  them  as  property 
— any  more  than  there  was  a  command  to  the  brethren  of 
Joseph  to  enter  into  a  negotiation  for  the  sale  of  their  brother. 
Nor  is  there  any  approbation  expressed  of  the  fact  that  they 
were  bought ;  unless  the  command  given  to  Abraham  to  affix 
to  them  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  and  to  recognise  them  as 
brethren  in  the  faith  which  he  held,  should  be  construed  as 
such  evidence  of  approval. 

The  inquiry  then  presents  itself,  whether  the  fact  that  they 
were  bought  determines  any  thing  with  certainty  in  regard 
to  the  nature  of  the  servitude,  or  to  the  propriety  of  slavery 
as  practised  now.  The  Hebrew  in  the  passages  referred  to 
-in  Genesis  is,  '  the  born  in  thy  house,  and  the  purchase  of 
silver^'  ^02-n:pD — miknath  keseph — not  incorrectly  ren- 
dered, *  those  bought  with  money.'  The  verb  njj^  kdndf 
from  which  the  noun  here  is  derived,  and  which  is  com- 
monly used  in  the  Scriptures  when  the  purchase  of  slaves 


72  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE         * 

is  referred  to,  means  to  set  upright,  or  erect,  to  found  or 
create.  Gen.  xiv.  19,  22,  Deut.  xxxii.  6;  to  get  for  oneself 
to  gain  or  acquire,  Prov.  iv.  7,  xv.  32;  to  obtain.  Gen. 
iv.  1 ;  and  to  buy  or  purchase.  Gen.  xxv.  10,  xlvii.  22. 
In  this  latter  sense  it  is  often  used,  and  with  the  same 
latitude  of  signification  as  the  word  buy  or  purchase  is  with 
us.  It  is  most  commonly  rendered  by  the  words  buy  and 
purchase  in  the  Scriptures.  See  Gen.  xxv.  10,  xlvii.  22; 
xlix.  30,  1.  13  ;  Josh.  xxiv.  32 ;  2  Sam,  xii.  3 ;  Ps.  Ixxviii. 
54 ;  Deut.  xxxii.  0 ;  Lev.  xxvii.  24,  and  very  often  else- 
where. It  is  applied  to  the  purchase  of  fields ;  of  cattle ; 
of  men ;  and  of  every  thing  which  was  or  could  be  regarded 
as  property.  As  there  is  express  mention  of  silver  or  money 
in  the  passage  before  us  respecting  the  servants  of  Abraham, 
there  is  no  doubt  that  the  expression  means  that  he  paid 
a  price  for  a  part  of  his  servants.  A  part  of  them  were 
"born  in  his  house  ;"  a  part  had  been  '-bought  with  money" 
from  '  strangers,'  or  were  foreigners. 

But  still,  this  use  of  the  word  in  itself  determines  nothing 
in  regard  to  the  tenure  by  which  they  were  held,  or  the 
nature  of  the  servitude  to  which  they  were  subjected.  It 
does  not  prove  that  they  were  regarded  as  property  An  the 
sense  in  which  the  slave  is  now  regarded  as  a  chattel ; 
nor  does  it  demonstrate  that  the  one  who  was  boufrht 
ceased  to  be  regarded  altogether  as  a  man ;  or  that  it  was 
regarded  as  right  to  sell  him  again.  The  fact  that  he 
was  to  be  circumcised  as  one  of  the  family  of  Abraham, 
certainly  does  not  look  as  if  he  ceased  to  be  regarded  as 
a  man. 

The  word  rendered  buy  or  purchase  in  the  Scriptures, 
is  applied  to  so  many  kinds  of  purchases,  that  no  safe 
argument  can  be  founded  on  its  use  in  regard  to  the  kind 
of  servitude  which  existed  in  the  time  of  Abraham.  A 
reference  to  a  few  cases  where  this  word  is  used,  will 
show  that  nothing  is  determined  by  it  respecting  the  tenure 
by  which  the  thing  purchased  Avas  held.     (1.)  It  is  used 


SCRIPTURAL    Vir.WS    OF    SLAV  FRY.  73 

ill  the  common  sense  of  tlie  word  purcliasc  as  apj)lit'J 
to  inanimale  ihing^s,  where  the  property  would  be  aUuluie. 
Gen.  xlii.  2,  7,  xliii.  20,  xlvii.  19,  xxx.  19.  (2.)  It  is 
applied  to  the  purcluise  of  caltle^  where  the  property  may 
be  supposed  to  be  as  ab.volule.  See  Gen.  xlvi.  22,  21, 
iv.  20;  Job  xxxvi.  L53 ;  Deut.  iii.  19;  and  often.  (3.)  God 
is  represented  as  having  bought  his  people ;  that  is,  as 
having  ransomed  them  with  a  price,  or  jmrchasid  lluMn 
to  himself.  Deut.  xxxii.  (J,  "Is  not  he  thy  Father  that 
hath  bought  thee?" —  l-p^  —  hantkha — tliy  purchaser. 
Ex.  XV.  l(i,  **By  the  greatness  of  thine  arm  they  sliaJl  be 
still  as  a  stone,  till  thy  people  pass  over;  till  the  j)eople 
pass  over  which  thou  hast  purchased^"' — H'^p,  kanithd. 
See  Psalm  Ixxiv.  2.  Gomp.  Isa.  xiiii.  3,  "I  gave  Egypt 
for  thy  ransom,  Ethiopia  and  Seba  for  thee."  But  though 
the  word  purchase  is  used  in  relation  to  the  redemption 
of  the  people  of  God — the  very  word  which  is  used 
respecting  the  servants  of  Abraham. — no  one  will  maintain 
that  tliey  were  held  as  slaves,  or  regarded  as  property. 
Who  can  tell  but  what  Abraham  purchased  his  servants  in 
some  such  way,  by  redeeming  them  from  galling  captivity  ? 
May  they  not  have  been  prisoners  in  war,  to  -whom 
he  did  an  inestimable  service  in  rescuing  them  from  a 
condition  of  grievous  and  hopeless  bondage  ?  May  they 
not  have  been  slaves  in  the  strict  and  proper  sense,  and 
may  not  his  act  of  |)urcha-sing  them  have  been,  in  fact,  a 
species  of  emancipation  in  a  way  similar  to  that  in  which 
God  emancipates  his  peojile  from  the  galling  servitude 
of  sin  ?  The  mere  act  of  paying  a  price  for  them  no  more 
implies  that  he  continued  to  hold  them  as  slaves,  than  it 
does  now  when  a  man  purchases  his  wife  or  child  who  have 
been  held  as  slaves,  or  than  the  fact  that  God  has  redeemed 
his  people  by  a  price  implies  that  he  regards  them  as 
slavfs.  (1.)  Among  the  Hebrews  a  man  might  sell  himself, 
and  this  transaction  on  the  part  of  him  to  whom  he  sold 
himself  would  be  represented  by  the  word  bought.     Thus 

7 


74  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

in  Lev.  xxv.  47,  48,  "And  if  a  sojourner  or  a  stranger  wax 
rich  by  thee,  and  thy  brother  that  dwelleth  by  him  wax 
poor,  and  sell  himself  unto  the  stranger  or  sojourner  by  thee, 
or  to  the  stock  of  the  stranger's  family,  after  that  he  is  sold, 
he  may  be  redeemed  again."  This  transaction  is  repre- 
sented as  a  purchase.  Ver.  50,  "And  he  shall  reckon 
with  him  that  bought  him,  (Heb.  his  purchaser^  ^njp 
konaihu,)  from  the  year  that  he  was  sold  unto  the  year  of 
jubilee,"  &c.  This  was  a  mere  purchase  of  time  or  service. 
It  gave  no  right  to  sell  the  man  again,  or  to  retain  him  in 
any  event  beyond  a  certain  period,  or  to  retain  him  af  all, 
if  his  friends  chose  to  interpose  and  redeem  him.  It  gave 
no  right  of  property  in  the  man,  any  more  than  the  purchase 
of  the  unexpired  time  of  an  apprentice,  or  the  '  purchase' 
of  the  poor  in  the  state  of  Connecticut  does.  In  no  proper 
sense  of  the  word  could  this  be  called  slavery.  (5.)  The 
word  buy  or  purchase  was  sometimes  applied  to  the 
manner  in  which  a  wife  was  procured.  Thus  Boaz  is 
represented  as  saying  that  he  had  bought  Ruth.  "More- 
over, Ruth  the  Moabitess,  the  wife  of  Mahlon,  have  I 
purchased  (""'T^.P — kdnithi)  to  be  my  wife."  Here  the 
word  \vhich  is  applied  to  the  manner  in  which  Abraham 
became  possessed  of  his  servants,  is  applied  to  the  manner 
in  which  a  wife  was  procured.  So  Hosea  says,  (ch.  iii.  2,) 
"  So  I  bought  her  to  me  (another  word  however  being  used 
in  the  Hebrew,  n"^2  kdrd)  for  fifteen  pieces  of  silver,  and 
for  an  homer  of  barley,  and  an  half  homer  of  barley."  Jacob 
purchased  his  wives,  Leah  and  Rachel,  not  indeed  by  the 
payment  of  money,  but  by  labour.  Gen.  xxix.  15 — 23. 
That  the  practice  of  purchasing  a  wife,  or  paying  a  '  dowry* 
for  her  was  common,  is  apparent  from  Ex.  xxii.  17 ;  1  Sam. 
xviii.  25.  Comp.  Judges  i.  12,  13.  Yet  it  will  not  be 
maintained  that  the  wife,  among  the  Hebrews,  was  in  any 
proper  sense  a  slave,  or  that  she  was  regarded  as  subject 
to  the  laws  which  regulate  property,  or  that  the  husband 
had  a  right   to  sell  her  again.     In  a  large  sense,  indeed, 


SCRirTURAL    VIEWS   OF    SLAVERY.  75 

she  was  regardod,  as  the  conductors  of  the  Princeton 
Repertory  (iSiO,  p.  *Z\i^)  allege,  as  the  wife  is  now,  as  the 
property  of  her  husband;  that  is,  she  was  his  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  claim  of  any  other  man,  but  she  was  his 
as  his  vifcj  not  as  his  i>l(ive.  (6.)  The  word  '■bunsihV 
occurs  in  a  transaction  between  Joseph  and  the  jieople 
of  Egypt  in  such  a  way  as  farther  to  explain  its  meaning. 
When,  during  the  famine,  the  money  of  tlie  Egyptians 
had  failed,  and  Joseph  had  purchased  all  the  land,  the 
people  proposed  to  become  his  servants.  When  the  con- 
tract was  closed,  Joseph  said  to  them,  "  Behold  I  have 
botight  you — '»TJp  kdnithi — this  day,  and  your  land  for 
Pharaoh,"  Gen.  xlvii.  *23.  The  nature  of  this  contract  is 
immediately  specified.  They  were  to  be  regarded  as 
labourinj]:  for  Pharaoh.  The  land  belonrred  to  him,  and 
Joseph  furnished  the  people  seed,  or  'stocked  the  land,' 
and  they  were  to  cultivate  it  on  shares  for  Pharaoh.  The 
fifth  part  was  to  be  his,  and  the  other  four  parts  were  to  be 
theirs.  There  was  a  claim  on  them  for  labour,  but  it  does 
not  appear  that  the  claim  extended  farther.  No  fanners 
now  who  work  land  on  shares,  would  be  willing  to  have 
their  condition  described  as  one  of  slavery. 

The  conclusion  which  we  reach  from  this  examination 
of  the  words  buy  and  bought  as  applied  to  the  case  of 
Abraham  is,  that  the  use  of  the  word  determines  nothing  in 
regard  to  the  tenure  by  which  his  servants  were  held. 
They  may  have  been  purchased  from  those  who  had  taken 
them  as  captives  in  war,  and  the  purchase  may  have  been 
regarded  by  themselves  as  a  species  of  redemption,  or  a 
most  desirable  rescue  from  the  fate  which  usually  attends 
such  captives — perchance  from  death.  The  property  which 
it  was  understood  that  he  had  in  them  may  have  been 
merely  property  in  their  time,  and  not  in  their  persons. 
Or  the  purchase  may  have  in  fact  amounted  to  every  thing 
that  is  desirable  in  emancipation,  and,  from  any  thing  implied 
ia  the  word,  their  subsef^uent  service  in  the  family  of  Abra- 


76  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

ham  may  have  been  entirely  voluntary.  It  is  a  very 
material  circumstance  also  that  there  is  not  the  siightefit 
evidence  that  either  Abraham^  Isaac,  or  Jacob  ever  sold  a 
slave,  or  offered  one  for  sale,  or  regarded  them  as  liable 
to  be  sold.  There  is  no  evidence  that  their  servants  even 
descended  as  a  part  of  an  inheritance  from  father  to  son. 
So  far,  indeed,  as  the  accounts  in  the  Scriptures  go,  it  would 
be  impossible  to  prove  that  they  would  not  have  been  at 
liberty  at  any  time  to  leave  their  masters,  if  they  had 
ch(  sen  to  do  so.  The  passage,  therefore,  which  says  that 
Abraham  had  'servants  bought  with  money,'  cannot  be 
adduced  to  justify  slavery  as  it  exists  now — even  if  this 
were  all  that  we  know  about  it.     But 

(4.)  Servitude  in  the  days  of  Abraham  must  have  existed 
in  a  very  mild  form,  and  have  had  features  Avhich  slavery  by 
no  means  has  now.  Almost  the  only  transaction  which  is 
mentioned  in  regard  to  the  servants  of  Abraham,  is  one 
which  could  never  occur  in  the  slaveholding  parts  of  our 
country.  A  marauding  expedition  of  petty  kings  came  from 
the  North  and  East,  and  laid  waste  the  country  around  the 
vale  of  Siddim,  near  to  which  Abraham  lived,  and  among 
other  spoils  of  battle  they  carried  away  Lot  and  his  posses- 
sions. Abraham,  it  is  said,  then  '  armed  his  trained  servants, 
born  in  his  own  house,  three  hundred  and  eighteen,  and  pur- 
sued them  unto  Dan,'  and  rescued  the  family  of  Lot  and 
his  goods.  Gen.  xiv.  This  narrative  is  one  that  must  for 
ever  show  that  servitude,  as  it  existed  in  the  family  of  Abra- 
ham, was  a  very  different  thing  from  what  it  is  in  the  United 
States.  The  number  was  large,  and  it  does  not  appear  that 
any  persons  but  his  servants  accompanied  Abraham.  They 
were  all  armed.  They  were  led  off  on  a  distant  expedition, 
where  there  could  have  been  no  power  in  Abraham  to  pre- 
serve his  life,  if  they  had  chosen  to  rise  up  against  him,  and 
no  power  to  recover  them,  if  they  had  chosen  to  set  them- 
selves free.  Yet  he  felt  himself  entirely  safe,  when  accompa- 
nied with  this  band  of  armed  men,  and  when  far  away  from 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVERY.  77 

his  family  and  his  home.  What  must  have  been  the  nature 
of  servitude,  where  the  master  was  wilHng  to  arm  such  a 
company  ;  to  put  himself  entirely  at  their  disposal,  and  had 
them  ofl'to  a  distant  land  ? 

Compare  with  this  the  condition  of  things  in  the  United 
States.  Here,  it  is  regarded  as  essential  to  the  security  of  the 
life  of  the  master,  that  slaves  shall  never  be  intrusted  with 
arms.  "A  slave  is  not  allowed  to  keep  or  carry  a  weapon.*'* 
*'He  cannot  go  from  the  tenement  of  his  master,  or  other  per- 
son with  whom  he  lives,  without  a  pass,  or  something  to  show 
that  he  is  proceeding  by  authority  from  his  master,  employer, 
or  overseer."!  **  For  keeping  or  carrying  a  gun,  or  powder, 
or  shot,  or  club,  or  other  weapon  whatsoever,  offensive  or  de- 
fensive, a  slave  incurs,  for  each  ofTcnce,  thirty-nine  lashes,  by 
order  of  a  justice  of  the  peace  ;"j  and  in  North  Carolina  and 
Tennessee,  twenty  lashes,  by  the  nearest  constable,  without 
a  conviction  by  the  justice. §  Here,  there  is  every  precaution 
from  laws,  and  from  the  dread  of  the  most  fearful  kind  of 
punishment,  against  the  escape  of  slaves.  Here,  there  is  a 
constant  apprehension  that  they  may  rise  against  their  mas- 
ters, and  every  security  is  taken  agtiinst  their  organization 
and  combination.  Here,  there  is  probably  not  a  single  master 
who  would,  if  he  owned  throe  hundred  slaves,  dare  to  put 
arms  in  their  hands,  and  lead  them  off  on  an  expedition 
against  a  foe.  If  the  uniform  precautions  and  care  at  the 
South  against  arming  the  slaves,  or  allowing  them  to  become 
acquainted  with  their  own  strength,  be  any  expression  respect- 
ing the  nature  of  the  system,  slavery  in  the  United  States  is  a 
ven'  different  thing  from  servitude  in  the  time  of  Abraham, 
and  it  does  not  prove  that  in  the  species  of  servitude  existing 


•  Rev.  Cotle  Virg.  vol.  i.  p.  453,  §  83,  84. 
f  Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  422,  §  6.     Sec  Paulding  on  Slavery,  p.  146. 
4  2  Lilt  and  Swi.  1  ir)0;  2  Missouri  Laws,  741,  §  4. 
^Haywood's  Manual,  521  ;    Stroud  on  the  Laws  relating  to  Slavery, 
p.  102. 

7» 


78  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

here  it  is  right  to  refer  to  the  case  of  Abraham,  and  to  say  that 
it  is  *  a  good  patriarchal  system.^  Let  the  cases  be  made 
parallel  before  the  names  of  the  patriarchs  are  called  in  to 
justify  the  system.     But 

(5.)  What  real  support  would  it  furnish  to  the  system, 
even  if  it  were  true  that  the  cases  were  wholly  parallel  ? 
How  far  would  it  go  to  demonstrate  that  God  regards  it  as  a 
good  system,  and  one  that  is  to  be  perpetuated,  in  order  that 
society  may  reach  its  highest  possible  elevation  ?  Who 
would  undertake  to  vindicate  all  the  conduct  of  the  patri- 
archs, or  to  maintain  that  all  which  they  practised  was  in 
accordance  with  the  will  of  God  ?  They  practised  concu- 
binage and  polygamy.  Is  it  therefore  certain  that  this  was 
the  highest  and  purest  state  of  societ}^  and  that  it  was  a  state 
which  God  designed  should  be  perpetuated  ?  Abraham  and 
Isaac  were  guilty  of  falsehood  and  deception,  (Gen.  xx.  2, 
seq. ;  xxvi.  7 ;)  Jacob  secured  the  birthright,  by  a  collusive 
fraud  between  him  and  his  mother,  (Gen.  xxvii,)  and  obtained 
no  small  part  of  his  property  by  cunning,  (Gen.  xxx.  86-43 ;) 
and  Noah  was  drunk  with  wine,  (Gen.  ix.  21  ;)  and  these 
things  are  recorded  merely  as  facts,  without  any  decided  ex- 
pression of  disapprobation ;  but  is  it  therefore  to  be  inferred 
that  they  had  the  approbation  of  God,  and  that  they  are  to 
be  practised  still,  in  order  to  secure  the  highest  condition 
of  society  ? 

Take  the  single  case  of  polygamy.  Admitting  that  the 
patriarchs  held  slaves,  the  argument  in  favour  of  polygamy, 
from  their  conduct,  would  be,  in  all  its  main  features,  the 
same  as  that  which  I  suggested,  in  the  commencement  of  this 
chapter,  as  employed  in  favour  of  slavery.  The  argument 
would  be  this  : — that  they  were  good  men,  the  '  friends  of 
God,'  and  that  what  such  men  practised  freely  cannot  be 
wrong ;  that  God  permitted  this  ;  that  he  nowhere  forbade  it ; 
that  he  did  not  record  his  disapprobation  of  the  practice  ; 
and  that  whatever  God  permitted  in  such  circumstances, 
without  expressing  his  disapprobation,  must  be  regarded  as 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  79 

in  itself  a  good  thins:,  and  as  desirable  to  be  perpetuated,  in 
order  that  society  may  reach  the  highest  point  of  elevation. 
It  is  perfectly  clear  that,  so  far  as  the  conduct  of  the  patri- 
archs goes,  it  would  be  just  as  easy  to  construct  an  argument 
in  favour  of  polygamy  as  in  favour  of  slavery^-even  on  the 
supposition  that  slavery  existed  then  essentially  as  it  does 
now.  But  it  is  not  probable  that  polygamy  would  be  defend- 
ed now,  as  a  good  institution,  and  as  one  that  has  the  appro- 
bation of  Ck)d,  even  by  those  who  defend  the  'domestic 
institutions  of  the  South.'  The  truth  is,  that  the  patriarchs 
were  good  men  in  their  generation,  and,  considering  their  cir- 
cumstances, were  men  eminent  for  piety.  But  they  were 
imperfect  men  ;  they  lived  in  the  infancy  of  the  world;  they 
had  comparatively  little  light  on  the  subjects  of  morals  and 
religion;  and  it  is  a  very  feeble  argument  which  maintains 
that  a  thing  is  rights  because  any  one  or  all  of  the  patri- 
archs practiced  it. 

But  after  all,  what  real  sanction  did  God  ever  give  either 
to  polygamy  or  to  servitude,  as  it  was  practised  in  the  time 
of  the  patriarchs  ?  Did  he  command  either  ?  Did  he  ever 
express  approbation  of  either  ?  Is  there  an  instance  in  which 
either  is  mentioned  with  a  sentiment  of  approval  I  The 
mere  record  of  actual  occurrences,  even  if  there  is  no  declared 
disapprobation  of  them,  proves  nothing  as  to  the  divine  esti- 
mate of  what  is  recorded.  There  is  a  record  of  the  '  sale'  of 
Joseph  into  servitude,  first  to  the  Ishmaelites,  and  then  to 
Poliphar.  There  is  no  expression  of  disapprobation.  There 
is  no  exclamation  of  surprise  or  astonishment,  as  if  a  deed  of 
enormous  wickedness  were  done,  when  brothers  sold  their 
own  brother  into  hopeless  captivity.  This  was  done  also  by 
those  who  were  subsequently  reckoned  among  the  'patri- 
archs,' and  some  of  whom  at  the  time  were  probably  pious 
men.  Will  it  be  inferred  that  (iod  approved  lliis  transac- 
tion ;  that  he  meant  to  smile  on  the  act,  when  brothers  sell 
their  own  brothers  into  hopeless  bondage?  Will  this  record 
be  adduced  to  justify  kidnapping,  or  the  acts  of  parents  in 


80  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

barbarous  lands,  who,  forgetful  of  all  the  laws  of  their  nature, 
sell  their  own  children  ?  Will  the  record  that  the  IshmaeHtes 
took  the  youthful  Joseph  into  a  distant  land,  and  sold  him 
there  as  a  slave,  be  referred  to  as  furnishing  evidence  that 
God  approves  the  conduct  of  those  who  kidnap  the  unof- 
fending inhabitants  of  Africa,  or  buy  them  there,  and  carry 
them  across  the  deep,  to  be  sold  into  hopeless  bondage? 
Why  then  should  the  fact  that  there  is  a  record  that  the 
patriarchs  held  servants,  or  bought  them,  without  any  ex- 
pressed disapprobation  of  the  deed,  be  adduced  as  evidence 
that  God  regards  slavery  as  a  good  institution,  and  intends 
that  it  shall  be  perpetuated  under  the  influence  of  his  religion, 
as  conducing  to  the  highest  good  of  society  ?  The  truth  is, 
that  the  mere  record  of  afact^  even  without  any  sentiment  of 
approbation  or  disapprobation,  is  no  evidence  of  the  views  of 
him  who  makes  it.  Are  we  to  infer  that  Herodotus  approved 
of  all  that  he  saw  or  heard  of  in  his  travels,  and  of  which  he 
made  a  record  ?  Are  we  to  suppose  that  Tacitus  and  Livy 
approved  of  all  the  deeds  the  memory  of  which  they  have 
transmitted  for  the  instruction  of  future  ages  ?  Are  we  tc 
maintain  that  Gibbon  and  Hume  beUeved  that  all  which 
they  have  recorded  was  adapted  to  promote  the  good  of-  man- 
kind ?  Shall  the  biographer  of  Nero,  and  Caligula,  and 
Richard  III.,  and  Alexander  VI.,  and  Caesar  Borgia,  be  held 
responsible  for  approving  of  all  that  these  men  did,  or  of  com- 
mending their  example  to  the  imitation  of  mankind  ?  Sad 
would  be  the  office  of  an  historian  were  he  to  be  thus  judged. 
Why  then  shall  we  infer  that  God  approved  of  all  that  the 
patriarchs  did,  even  when  there  is  no  formal  disapprobation 
expressed ;  or  infer,  because  such  transactions  have  been 
recorded,  that  therefore  they  are  right  in  his  sight  ? 


SCRirTUIL\L    VILWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  81 


CHAPTER  IV. 

S/avcrT/  in  Egr/pf, 

The  will  of  God  may  oflcn  bo  learned  from  the  events  of 
his  providence.  From  his  dealings  with  an  individual,  a 
class  of  men,  or  a  nation,  we  may  ascertain  whether  the 
course  which  has  been  pursued  was  agreeable  to  his  will. 
It  is  not,  indeed,  always  safe  to  argue,  that  because  calamities 
come  upon  an  individual,  they  are  sent  as  a  punishment  on 
account  of  any  peculiarly  aggravated  sin,  or  that  these  cala- 
mities prove  that  he  is  a  greater  sinner  than  others,  (Luke 
xiii.  1 — 5,)  but  when  a  certain  course  of  conduct  alwaya  tends 
to  certain  results ;  when  there  are  laws  in  operation  in  the  moral 
world  as  fixed  as  in  the  natural  world  ;  and  when  there  are 
uniformly  either  direct  or  indirect  interpositions  of  Providence 
in  regard  to  any  existing  institutions,  it  is  not  unsafe  to  infer 
from  these  what  is  the  divine  will.  It  is  not  unsafe,  for  illus- 
tration, to  argue  from  the  uniform  effects  of  intemperance  in 
regard  to  the  will  of  God.  Those  effects  occur  in  every  age 
of  the  world,  and  in  reference  to  every  class  of  men.  There 
are  no  exceptions  in  favour  of  kings  or  philosophers ;  of  the 
inhabitants  of  any  particular  climate  or  region  of  coiintry;  of 
either  sex,  or  of  any  age.  The  poverty,  and  babbling,  and 
redness  of  eyes,  and  disease  engendered  by  intemperance, 
may  be  regarded  without  danger  of  error  as  expressive  of  the 
will  of  God  in  reference  to  that  habit.  They  show  that 
there  has  been  a  violation  of  a  great  law  of  our  nature  or- 
dained for  our  good,  and  that  such  a  violation  must  always 
incur  the  frown  of  the  great  Governor  of  the  world.  The 
revelation  of  the  mind  of  (iod  in  such  a  case  is  not  less  clear 
than  were  the  enunciations  of  his  will  on  Sinai. 

The  same  is  true  in  regard  to  cities  and  nations.     We 


82  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

need  be  in  as  little  danger,  in  general,  in  arguing  from  what 
occurs  to  them,  as  in  the  case  of  an  individual.  There  is 
now  no  doubt  among  men  why  the  old  world  was  destroyed 
by  a  flood  ;  why  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  were  consumed  ;  why 
Tyre,  Nineveh,  Babylon,  and  Jerusalem  were  overthrown  ; 
and  there  can  be  as  Utile  doubt,  since  the  excavations  have 
been  made  at  Herculaneum  and  Pompeii,  why  those  cities 
were  buried  under  the  ashes  and  lava  of  Vesuvius.  If  a  cer- 
tain course  of  conduct  long  pursued,  and  in  a  great  variety 
of  circumstances,  leads  uniformly  to  health,  happiness,  and 
property,  we  are  in  little  danger  of  inferring  that  it  is  in 
accordance  with  the  will  of  God.  If  it  lead  to  poverty  and 
tears,  we  are  in  as  little  danger  of  error  in  inferring  that  it  is 
a  violation  of  some  great  law  which  God  has  ordained  for 
the  good  of  man.  If  an  institution  among  men  is  always 
followed  by  certain  results;  if  there  is  no  modification  of  it 
by  which  it  can  be  made  to  avoid  those  results ;  if  we  find 
them  in  all  chmes,  and  under  all  forms  of  government,  and 
in  every  stage  of  society,  it  is  not  unsafe  to  draw  an  infer- 
ence from  these  facts  on  the  question  whether  God  regards 
the  institution  as  a  good  one,  and  one  which  he  designs  shall 
be  perpetuated  for  the  good  of  society. 

It  would  be  easy  to  make  an  application  of  these  unde- 
niable principles  to  the  subject  of  slavery.  The  inquiry 
would  be,  whether  in  certain  results  always  found  to  accom- 
pany slavery,  and  now  developing  themselves  in  our  own 
country,  there  are  no  clear  indications  of  what  is  the  will  of 
God.  The  inquiry  would  be  pursued  with  reference  to  the 
bearing  of  the  '  institution'  on  morals  and  rehgion ;  on  the 
industry  and  population  of  a  state  ;  on  agriculture,  commerce, 
literature,  and  the  arts. 

I  propose,  however,  only  to  consider  the  application  of  the 
principle  to  one  important  transaction  in  history — the  rescue 
of  an  enslaved  people  from  Egyptian  bondage.  The  object 
is  to  inquire  what  hght  that  transaction  throws  on  the  ques- 
tion, Hliether  God  regards  slavery  as  a  good  insiitutionj 


SCRirTURAL    Vir.WS    OF    SLAVr.RY.  83 

and  one  which  he  desires  should  he  perpetuated.  The  prin- 
ciple on  which  this  inquiry  will  be  conducted  is,  that  if  we 
can  Jind  a  case  in  histori/  concerning  ivhich  God  has  de- 
clared his  sentiments,  we  may  draw  a  safe  cojiclusion  in 
regard  to  the  estimate  which  he  forms  of  a  similar  institu- 
tion now. 

The  case  referred  to  is  that  of  Hebrew  servitude  in  Eg-ypt. 
The  obvious  inquiries  are,  I.  Whether  there  was  any  thing 
in  that  servitude  so  similar  to  slavery  now  as  to  make  it  safe 
and  proper  to  argue  from  the  one  to  the  other ;  and,  II. 
Whether  the  act  of  God  in  delivering  the  Israelites  from 
bondage  makes  it  proper  to  draw  any  conclusiori  as  to  his 
general  sentiments  about  slavery. 

I.  The  resemblance  between  the  servitude  of  the  Hebrews 
in  Eg}-pt  and  slavery  now  ;  or  the  inquiry  -whether  they  are 
so  similar  as  to  make  it  proper  to  argue  from  the  one  to  the 
other  respecting  the  divine  will. 

It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  there  were  some  important 
points  in  which  the  servitude  of  the  Hebrews  in  Egypt 
differed  from  slavery  now,  but  most  if  not  all  of  those  points 
were  of  such  a  nature  as  not  particularly  to  affect  the  in- 
quiry before  us. 

(r/)  The  Hebrews  were  not  essentially  distinguished  from 
the  Egyptians,  as  the  Africans  are  from  their  masters  in  this 
land,  by  colour.  There  could  be  no  argument  drawn  from 
the  fact  that  they  were  of  different  complexion,  or  were  of  an 
inferior  caste  of  men,  in  favour  of  holding  them  in  bondage. 

{b)  They  do  not  appear  to  have  been  claimed  by  individuals, 
or  distributed  on  plantations  or  farms  as  the  property  of  in- 
dividuals. It  was  the  enslaving  or  oppressing  of  them  as  a 
people,  or  nation,  rather  than  subjecting  them,  as  is  done  in 
our  country,  as  individuals,  to  the  service  of  others.  They 
were  in  the  service  of  the  government,  and  held  by  the 
government,  without  particular  reference  to  the  will  of  in- 
dividuals. 

(c)On  many  accounts,  also,  the  servitude  in  Egypt  was 


84  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

much  more  mild  than  it  is  in  this  country.  Though  cha- 
racterized as  ^  harcW  *■  oppresaive,''  ^  grievous,^  and  a  ^fur- 
nace f  and  though  it  was  such  as  to  lead  to  most  decided 
and  marked  interpositions  of  God  to  rescue  a  down-trodden 
people  from  it,  yet  there  were  features  in  it  which  greatly 
softened  it  as  compared  with  the  system  in  our  own  land. 
This  circumstance  will  increase,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  sequel, 
the  force  of  the  argument  which  I  deduce  from  the  inter- 
position of  God  in  the  case ;  for  if  the  oppression  there  was 
so  grievous  as  to  call  forih  the  strong  expressions  of  God  in 
regard  to  it  recorded  in  the  Bible,  and  to  lead  to  the  heavy 
judgments  which  fell  on  Egypt  in  order  to  testify  his  disap- 
probation of  the  system,  what  are  we  to  infer  in  reference  to 
the  divine  views  of  the  still  more  grievous  oppressions  in 
our  own  land  ?  In  order  to  see  this  difference,  and  to  ap- 
preciate the  force  of  this  consideration,  it  is  of  importance  to 
have  a  just  conception  of  the  nature  of  servitude  in  Egypt. 
The  following  summary,  made  in  part  by  another  hand, 
("  The  Bible  vs.  Slavery,  pp.  55,  56,  57,")  will  present  this 
with  sufficient  distinctness.  {I.)  The  Israelites  "-were  not 
dispersed  among  the  families  of  Egypt,  but  formed  a 
separate  community.  Gjn.  xlvi.  34 ;  Ex.  viii.  22,  24 ;  ix. 
26;  X.  23;  xi.  7;  iv.  29;  ii.  9;  xvi.  22;  xvii.  5;  vi.  14. 
(2.)  They  had  the  exclusive  possession  of  the  land  of  Go- 
shen, the  best  part  of  the  land  of  Egypt.  Gen.  xlv.  18  ; 
xlvii.  6,  11,  27;  Ex.  viii.  22;  ix.  20  ;  xii.  4.  Goshen  must 
have  been  at  a  considerable  distance  from  those  parts  of 
Egypt  inhabited  by  the  Egyptians ;  so  far  at  least  as  to 
prevent  their  contact  with  the  Israelites,  since  the  reason 
assigned  for  locating  them  in  Goshen  was,  that  shepherds 
were  '  an  abomination  to  the  Egyptians  ;'  besides,  their  em- 
ployments would  naturally  lead  them  out  of  the  settled  parts 
of  Egypt  to  find  a  free  range  of  pasturage  for  their  immense 
flocks  and  herds.  (3.)  They  lived  in  permanent  dwellings. 
These  were  houses,  not  tents.  In  Ex.  xii.  7,  22,  the  two 
side  posts,  and  the  upper  door  posts^  and  the  lintel  of  the 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  85 

houses,  nre  mentioned.  Eacli  family  seems  to  have  occupied 
a  house  by  itsrff.  Acts  vii.  20.  (4.)  'jyiey  owned  'Jhcks 
and  herds,'  and  ♦  very  much  cattle.''  Ex.  xii.  4,  6,  32,  37, 
38.  From  the  fact  that  'every  man'  was  commanded  to  kill 
either  a  lamb  or  a  kid,  one  year  old,  for  the  passover,  before' 
the  people  left  Egypt,  we  infer  that  even  the  poorest  of  the 
Israelites  owned  a  flock  either  of  sheep  or  proats.  Further, 
the  immense  multitude  of  their  flocks  and  herds  may  be 
judo^ed  of  from  the  expostulation  of  Moses  with  Jehovah. 
iNum.  xi.  21,  22.  'The  people,  amoni^  whom  I  am,  are  six 
hundred  thousand  footmen  ;  and  thou  liast  said,  I  will  irivc 
them  flesh,  that  they  may  eat  a  whole  month  ;  shall  the  flocks 
and  the  herds  be  slain  for  them,  to  siijjice  them?'  As  these  six 
hundred  thousand  were  only  the  men  *from  twenty  years  old 
and  upward,  that  were  able  to  go  forth  to  war,'  Num.  i.  45, 46 ; 
the  whole  number  of  the  Israelites  could  not  have  been  less 
than  three  millions.  Flocks  and  herds  to  ♦  suffice' all  these 
for  food,  might  surely  be  called  'very  much  cattle.'  {b.)They 
had  their  own  form  of  s^overnmenty  and  preserved  their  tribe 
and  family  divisions,  and  their  internal  organization  through- 
out, though  still  a  province  of  Egypt  and  tributary  to  it. 
Ex.  ii.  1  ;  xii.  19,21;  vi.  14,  25;  v.  10;  iii.  10,18. 
(6.)  They  had,  in  a  considerable  measure,  the  disposal  of 
Iheir  oivn  lime.  Ex.  iii.  1(3,  18;  xii.  6;  ii.  9;  and  iv.  27, 
29— :U.  (7.)  They  were  all  armed.  Ex.  xxxii.  27.  (8.)  JIU 
the  females  seem  to  have  known  somethini(  of  domestic  re- 
finements. They  were  familiar  with  instruments  of  music, 
and  skilled  in  the  working  of  fine  fabrics,  Ex.  xv.  20; 
XXXV.  25,  2(3 ;  and  both  males  and  female  were  able  to  read 
and  write.  Deut.  xi.  18—20;  xvii.  19;  xxvii.  3.  (9.).Ver- 
I'iee  seems  to  have  been  exacted  from  none  but  adult  males. 
Nothing  is  said  from  which  the  bond  service  of  females  could 
be  inferred ;  the  hiding  of  Moses  three  months  by  liis  mother, 
and  the  payment  of  wages  to  her  by  Pharaoh's  daughter,  go 
against  such  a  supposition.  Ex.  ii.  29.  {\i).)  Their  food 
was  abundant  and  of  great  variety.     So  far  from  being  fed 

8 


86  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

upon  a  fixed  allowance  of  a  single  article,  and  liastily  pre- 
pared, '  they  sat  by  the  flesh-pots,'  and  '  did  eat  bread  to  the 
full.'  Ex.  xii.  15,39.  They  ate  'the  fish  freely,  the  cu- 
cumbers, and  the  melons,  and  the  leeks,  and  the  onions,  and 
the  garlic'  •  Num.  xi.  4,  5  ;  xx.  5."  (11.)  It  does  not  appear 
that  they  were  hable  to  be  sold  for  debt,  or  that  they  could 
be  disposed  of  by  testamentary  disposition.  And,  (12.)  they 
were  not  held  strictly  as  chattels.  They  were  oppressed 
men,  and  were  regarded  as  such.  They  were  men  held  to 
service  ;  not  men  reduced  to  all  the  conditions  of  property. 
But  still  there  were  so  many  strong  points  of  resemblance 
between  the  servitude  of  the  Hebrews  in  Egypt  and  slavery 
in  this  land,  as  to  make  it  right  to  argue  from  the  one  to 
the  other.  Indeed,  the  resemblances  are  so  remarkable  that 
they  cannot  fail  to  strike  every  one  who  reads  the  account  in 
Exodus,  and  the  references  to  the  servitude  in  Egypt  which 
abound  elsewhere  in  the  Scriptures.  (1.)  They  were  a 
foreign  race,  as  the  African  race  is  with  us.  They  were 
not  Egyptians,  any  more  than  the  natives  of  Congo  are 
Americans.    They  were  not  of  the  children  of  Ham.*    They 

•  It  is  not  admitted  here  that  if  they  had  been  of  the  children  of  Ham,  it 
would  have  been  right  to  reduce  them  to  servitude ;  for  apart  from  any  other 
consideration,  the  Egyptians  were  themselves  the  proper  descendants  of 
Ham.  An  argument  is  sometimes  attempted  in  favour  of  African  slavery 
from  the  curse  pronounced  by  Noah : — (Gen.  ix.  25,)  "  Cursed  be  Ca- 
naan ;  a  servant  of  servants  shall  he  be  unto  his  brethren."  See  the 
♦'Brief  Examination  of  the  Scripture  Testimony  on  the  Institution  of 
Slavery,"  by  Enoch  I^ewis.  I  have  not  thought  it  necessary  to  notice  this 
weak  argument,  for  two  reasons:  One  is,  that  a  mere  prediction  of 
what  would  be,  is  no  justification  of  wickedness — for  the  prediction  of  the 
Saviour  that  he  would  be  betrayed  by  Judas,  and  even  the  command  to  him 
to  do  *  what  he  was  about  to  do'  quickly,  (John  xiii.  27,)  did  not  justify  the 
act  of  the  traitor;  the  other  is,  that  the  curse  was  not  pronounced  on  Ham, 
but  on  Canaan.  What  have  the  inhabitants  of  Africa  to  do  with  that  ? 
They  are  not  descended  from  the  one  on  whom  the  curse  was  pronounced, 
whatever  might  be  the  argument  supposed  to  be  drawn  from  that  curse. 
The  argument,  however,  would  be  good  for  nothing  even  if  they  were.  It 
is  surpiising  that  it  was  ever  used. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  8^ 

were  of  another  family ;  thoy  difTercd  from  the  Eiryptians, 
by  whom  they  were  held  in  bondapfe,  as  certainly  as  the  Afri- 
can does  from  the  Caucasian  or  the  Malay  divisions  of  the 
great  family  of  man.  They  had  no  share  in  the  j^overnment; 
held  no  appointments  under  the  crown  ;  were  ehgible  to  no 
office ;  had  no  participation  in  making  or  administering  the 
laws.  They  were  dissimilar  in  religion,  in  language,  in  cus- 
toms, in  employment,  (Gen.  xlvi.  34,)  in  manners.  In  every 
thing  except  complexion,  they  were  as  unlike  the  Egyptians 
as  the  African  is  to  the  native  American,  and  they  had  as 
little  to  do  with  the  government  and  institutions  of  Egypt 
as  the  African  has  with  ours.  They  were  a  race  introduced 
from  abroad,  and  kept  throughout,  and  on  principle  distinct. 

(2.)  There  was  a  strong  resemblance  in  the  nature  of  the 
claim  set  up  over  them,  and  in  the  tenure  by  which  they 
were  held,  [a)  The  first  one  of  the  race  who  went  down 
to  Efr>'pt  and  dwelt  there,  was  carried  there  as  a  slave,  and 
sold  as  such.  He  had  been  kidnapped  by  members  of  his 
own  family ;  sold  to  men  who  were  as  willing  to  traffic  in 
human  flesh  as  in  aromatics  ;  carried  by  them,  as  an  article 
of  merchandise,  to  Eg}^pt,  and  sold  as  such  there.  Gen. 
xxxvii.  25—28;  xxxix.  1.  This  is  just  the  way  in  which 
African  slaves  were  introduced  into  the  United  States ;  and 
the  heartless  cruelty  with  which  Joseph  was  made  a  slave, 
and  sold,  has  been  re-enacted  millions  of  times  in  Africa,  in 
order  to  procure  the  slaves  which  are  now  in  the  United 
Slates.  How  appropriate  to  the  method  in  which  slaves  are 
procured  and  held  in  this  land,  would  be  the  description 
which  is  given  of  the  manner  in  which  Joseph  was  made  a 
slave  in  Eg}'pt ! 

<«  He  sent  a  man  before  them, 

"  Even  Joseph  who  was  sold  for  a  servant; 

<'  Whose  feet  they  hurt  with  fetters; 

*'He  teas  laid  in  iion."     Ps.cv.  17,  18. 

Many  a  poor  African  has  been  consigned  to  slavery  in  the 
same  way,  but  with  no  holy  bard,  hke  David,  so  patheti- 


88  AN    INQUIRY    INTO   THE 

cally  to  record  his  name,  and  to  tell  the  wrong  of  his  capture, 
and  the  manner  in  which  he  was  borne  to  the  scene  of  his 
future  toil  and  woes,  (b)  As  it  is  in  slavery  in  this  land,  so 
there  was  nothing  voluntary  on  the  part  of  the  Hebrews.  It 
was  throughout  the  work  of  oppression  and  wrong.  It  ex- 
isted because  their  masters  had  the  power  ;  not  because  they 
had  the  right.  There  was  nothing  on  their  part  of  the  nature 
of  contract ;  there  was  no  agreement  to  serve  the  Egyptians  ; 
they  had  never  been  consulted  in  the  case.  They  were 
*  made  to  serve'  with  hard  bondage,  for  they  had  no  power 
of  resisting.  Like  slavery  in  this  country,  then,  the  whole 
thing  was  distinct  from  the  acts  of  freemen,  and  the  entire 
arrangement  was  separated  from  that  of  voluntary  labour. 
There  was  not  a  Hebrew  who  had  expressed  his  consent  to 
that  kind  of  service ;  there  was  not  one  who  did  not  groaji 
and  sigh  by  reason  of  the  bondage.  Ex.  i.  8 — 11.  (c)  It  had 
the  essential  features  of  slavery,  so  far  as  those  features  are 
specified  in  the  Scriptures.  The  same  word  is  used  to  de- 
scribe it  which  is  commonly  employed  to  denote  servitude  in 
the  laws  of  Moses,  and  evidently  in  the  same  sense.  Thus 
in  Ex.  i.  14,  it  is  said,  "And  they  made  their  lives  bitter  with 
hard  bondage'^ — nt:^":)  riib^S — where  the  same  word  occurs 
which  is  commonly  applied  to  slavery  in  all  the  forms  in 
which  it  is  specified  in  the  Scriptures.  The  same  word 
occurs  in  Gen.  xv.  13,  where  the  servitude  in  Egypt  is  pre- 
dicted. "  Thy  seed  shall  be  a  stranger  in  a  land  that  is  not 
theirs,  and  shall  serve  them —  DnDlfl — and  they  shall  afflict 
them  four  hundred  years."     Comp.  Lev.  xxv.  30,  40. 

(3.)  It  was  unrequited  labour.  There  was  no  pretence 
even  of  giving  them  a  fair  compensation  for  their  toil. 
It  was  a  system  of  exaction  and  oppression — where  severe 
labour  was  demanded;  where  no  pay  was  tendered,  and 
where  iew  facilities  were  granted  for  the  performance  of 
the  prescribed  task.  The  method  by  which  this  was  done 
bore  a  strong  resemblance  also  to  the  arrangements  in  the 
slaveholding  portions  of  our  own  country ;  and  the  account 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAM.UV.  89 

which  is  given  of  that,  would  be  an  accurate  description 
of  the  means  resorted  to  to  compel  slaves  to  work  in  this 
land.  "Therefore  the}^  did  set  over  them  fask-masfcrs 
to  afflict  them  with  their  bio'ilens.''^  Ex.  i.  11.  Servi- 
tude has  always  demanded  the  appointment  of  an  order 
of  men  under  various  names  of  task-masters  or  drivers. 
It  appoints  tasks  to  be  done,  and  often  too  where  the 
"tale  of  bricks  is  demanded  while  no  straw  is  given." 
Ex.  V.  8,  11.  There  is  no  voluntary  labour.  There  are 
none  of  the  spontaneous  exertions  of  freemen.  All  the 
language  employed  to  describe  the  servitude  in  Egypt, 
is  language  denoting  severe  oppression  and  wrong ;  lan- 
guage such  as  is  proper  when  there  are  severe  exactions 
and  unrequited  labour ;  and  language  that,  with  almost  no 
change,  might  be  employed  to  describe  slavery  in  this 
country.  It  represents  a  state  of  things  conducted  on  the 
same  principles,  and  with  the  same  ends  in  view ;  and  the 
two  are  so  parallel  in  all  their  essential  features,  that  if 
God  approves  the  one,  he  must  have  approved  the  other ; 
if  he  hated  the  one,  he  hates  the  other.  The  argument 
here  is  of  the  same  kind  as  we  apply  in  other  cases.  The 
strong  faith  which  God  approved  in  Abraham,  he  approves 
wherever  it  exists  now  ;  the  wickedness  which  character- 
ized the  race  before  the  flood,  he  would  equally  disapprove 
of  now ;  and  the  tyranny  of  Ahab  he  equally  abhorred  in 
Nero,  in  Henry  VIII.,  and  would  in  any  future  sovereign. 
A  few  of  the  expressions,  therefore,  employed  when  the 
Bible  speaks  of  the  servitude  in  Egypt,  will  show  its 
parallelism  with  the  state  of  slavery  in  this  land,  and  will 
serve  to  show  also  how  God  must  reijard  both.  "And 
they  made  their  lives  bitter,  with  hard  bondage  in  mortar, 
and  in  bricks,  and  in  all  manner  of  service  in  the  field :  all 
their  ser\'ice  wherein  they  made  them  serve  was  with 
rigour."  Ex.  i.  14.  "  And  the  Egyptians  evil-entreated 
us,  and  afflicted  us,  and  laid  upon  us  hard  bondage,  and 
when  we  cried  unto  the  Lord  God  of  our  fathers,  the  Lord 


90  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

heard  our  voice,  and  looked  on  our  affliction,  and  our  labour, 
and  our  oppression  ;  and  the  Lord  brought  us  forth  out  of 
Egypt  with  a  mighty  hand,  and  with  an  outstretched  arm, 
and  with  great  terribleness,  and  with  signs,  and  with  won- 
ders." Deut.  xxvi.  6 — 8.  "  And  I  have  heard  the  groan- 
ing of  the  children  of  Israel,  whom  the  Egyptians  keep 
in  bondage  ;  and  I  have  remembered  my  covenant."  Ex. 
vi.  5.  Comp.  Ps.  cii.  20,  to  ascertain  how  the  Lord  will 
always  regard  such  a  state  of  things,  or  will  ultimately  act 
on  the  same  principle. 

«  For  he  hath  looked  down  from  the  height  of  his  sanctuary ; 
From  heaven  did  the  Lord  behold  the  earth ; 
To  hear  the  groaning  of  the  prisoner; 
To  loose  those  that  are  appointed  to  death." 

And  Ps.  xii.  5: 

"  For  the  oppression  of  the  poor. 
For  the  sighing  of  the  needy, 
Now  will  I  arise,  saith  the  Lord ; 
I  will  set  him  in  safety  from  him  that  puffeth  at  him. 

In  accordance  with  these  declarations,  are  the  numerous 
passages  which  speak  of  the  servitude  in  Egypt  as  hard 
and  oppressive  bondage,  and  the  situation  of  the  Hebrews 
there  as  a  residence  in  a  prison.  "  The  Lord  brought  us 
out  from  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bondage."  Ex.  viii.  14. 
"  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God  which  brought  thee  out  of  the  land 
of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bondage."  Ex.  xx.  2.  Comp. 
Deut.  V.  6 ;  vii.  8 ;  viii.  14 ;  xiii.  5,  10 ;  Josh.  xxiy.  17 ; 
Judges  vi.  8.  Let  any  one  look  at  the  numerous  references 
to  the  servitude  of  the  Hebrews  in  Egypt  in  these  and  other 
passages,  and  he  cannot  fail  to  be  struck  with  the  accuracy 
with  which  the  terms  employed  would  describe  slavery  in 
this  country.  There  are  no  words  used  to  characterize  that 
enormous  wrong — for  so  it  is  always  spoken  of  in  the  Scrip- 
tures— which  would  not  with  equal  accuracy  and  emphasis 
characterize  oppression  in  this  land. 


SCRirXURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVF.RY.  91 

(4.)  In  the  servitude  in  Egypt  it  was  necessary  to  adopt 
most  harsh  and  oppressive  measures  to  prevent  the  Hebn'ws 
from  becoming  so  numerous  as  to  be  able  to  overpower  tiicir 
masters,  and  to  prevent  their  joining  their  enemies  in  case  of 
invasion.  The  measures  adopted  in  Egypt,  and  the  reasons 
why  they  were  adopted,  are  distinctly  sjiecified.  The  alarm 
which  was  excited  was  on  account  of  their  growing  numbers. 
The  danger  apprehended  was,  that,  becoming  more  numerous 
than  their  masters,  they  would  be  able  to  subdue  them,  or  that 
they  would  unite  themselves  with  an  invading  army,  and 
thys  secure  their  own  freedom,  and  then  turn  their  arms  on 
their  oppressors.  "And  the  children  of  Israel  were  fruitful, 
and  increased  abundantly  and  multiplied,  and  waxed  exceed- 
ingly mighty ;  and  the  land  was  filled  with  them.  And  he 
[Pharaoh]  said  unto  his  people,  Behold,  the  people  of  the 
children  of  Israel  are  more  and  mightier  than  we  :  Come  on, 
let  us  deal  wisely  with  them  ;  lest  they  multiply,  and  it 
come  to  pass,  that,  when  there  falleth  out  any  war,  they  join 
al.so  unto  our  enemies,  and  fight  against  us,  and  so  get  them 
up  out  of  the  land."  Ex.  i.  7,  9,  10.  The  measures  adopted 
to  prevent  this,  are  well  known.  They  were  first,  to  oppress 
and  crush  them  by  severe  exactions ;  to  dishearten  them  ; 
and  to  prevent  their  increase  by  measures  of  excessive 
cruelty.  Ex.  i.  11,  13,  14.  Then,  when  this  failed,  (Ex. 
i.  12,)  they  resorted  to  the  still  more  harsh  and  cruel 
measure  of  putting  all  the  male  children  to  death,  that  thus 
they  might  remove  the  danger.  These  measures  were 
adopted  from  what  was  deemed  a  sagacious  policy,  that 
the  oppressed  Hebrews  might  not  be  able  to  assert  their 
own  freedom.     Ex.  i.  15,  10. 

Is  there  nothing  like  this  in  the  system  of  slavery,  as  it 
exists  in  this  land  ?  The  means  resorted  to  are  not  indeed 
precisely  the  same,  but  they  have  the  same  end  in  view.  It 
is  an  essential  part  of  the  system  here,  that  there  should  be 
measures  adopted  to  prevent  the  slaves  asserting  their  free- 
dom, and  an  extended  system  of  things  having  this  end  in 


92  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

view  is  constantly  in  operation — as  oppressive,  as  cruel,  and 
as  contrary,  in  some  respects,  to  the  laws  of  Heaven,  as  was 
the  unsuccessful  policy  of  the  Egyptians.  Among  those 
measures,  the  following  are  in  existence  in  the  slave  states  : 
— preventing  the  slaves  from  being  taught  to  read  and  write  ; 
prohibiting,  as  far  as  possible,  all  knowledge  among  them- 
selves of  their  own  numbers  and  strength ;  forbidding  all 
assemblages,  even  for  worship,  where  there  might  be  danger 
of  their  becoming  acquainted  with  their  own  strength,  and  of 
forming  plans  for  freedom ;  enacting  laws  of  excessive 
severity  against  those  who  run  away  from  their  masters ; 
appointing  severe  and  disgraceful  punishments,  either  with 
or  without  the  process  of  law,  for  those  who  are  suspected 
of  a  design  to  inform  the  slaves  that  they  are  men,  and  that 
they  have  the  rights  of  human  beings ;  and  solemnly  pro- 
hibiting the  use  of  arms  among  the  slaves,  designed  to  pre- 
vent their  rising  upon  their  masters,  or 'joining  themselves 
to  an  enemy,  to  fight  against  their  masters,  and  so  getting  up 
out  of  the  land.'  A  very  large  portion  of  the  enactments  in 
the  Southern  states,  have  the  same  object  in  view  which 
was  contemplated  and  avowed  by  the  oppressive  laws  and 
measures  of  the  Egyptians.  They  are  felt  to  be  essential  to 
the  system,  and  so  long  as  slavery  exists,  it  will  be  necessary 
to  frame  such  laws. 

There  will  be  occasion  to  illustrate  each  of  the  points 
referred  to  here  under  another  head,  when  we  come  to  con- 
sider the  nature  of  servitude  under  the  laws  of  Moses.  At 
present,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  refer  to  a  very  few  instances 
of  the  laws  in  the  slave  states  bearing  on  those  points,  or 
designed  to  keep  the  slaves  in  a  '  state  of  bondage.* 
(1.)  They  are  not  to  be  taught  to  read  or  write.  In  1740, 
South  Carolina  enacted  this  law :  "  Whereas,  the  having  of 
slaves  taught  to  write,  or  suffering  them  to  be  employed  in 
writing,  may  be  attended  with  great  inconveniences,  Be  it 
enacted,  that  all  and  every  person  and  persons  whatsoever, 
who  shall  hereafter  teach  or  cause  any  slave  or  slaves  to  be 


SCRIPTURAL    Vir.WS    OK    SLAVKRY.  93 

taught  to  write,  or  shall  use  or  employ  any  slave  as  a  scriho 
in  any  manner  of  writing  whatsoever,  every  such  person 
or  persons  shall,  for  every  such  offence,  forfeit  the  sum 
of  one  hundred  pounds  current  money."*  A  similar  law, 
except  the  penalty,  was  passed  in  Georg-ia,  hy  act  of  177().t 
In  the  revised  code  of  Virginia  of  1N19,  the  following 
statute  occurs  :  "  All  meetings  or  assemblages  of  slaves,  or 
free  negroes  or  mulaltoes  mixing  and  associating  with  such 
slaves  at  any  meeting-house,  or  houses,  or  any  other  place, 
&c.,  in  the  night,  or  at  any  school  or  schooh  for  teaching 
them  reading  or  writing  either  in  the  day  or  the  night, 
under  whatsoever  pretext,  shall  be  deemed  and  considered 
an  unlawful  assembly. '''X  (2.)  They  are  not  alloivcd  to 
assemble  even  for  worship  in  any  such  way  as  shall  make 
an  insurrection  possible.  In  a  law  enacted  by  Georgia, 
1792,  it  is  enacted  that  "no  congregation  or  company  of 
negroes  shall,  under  pretence  of  divine  worship,  assemble 
themselves  contrary  to  the  act  regulating  patrols. "§  Substan- 
tially the  same  thing  exists  in  South  CaroUna,||  and  in  Mis- 
sissippi.1}  (:J)  No  meeting  ivhatever  of  slaves  is  to  he 
allowed  of  such  a  number  as  could  acquaint  themselves  of 
thiir  own  strength,  or  make  combination  possible-  If  a 
slave  shall  presume  to  come  upon  the  plantation  of  any 
person,  without  leave  in  writing  from  his  master,  employer, 
&c.,  not  being  sent  on  lawful  business,  the  owner  of  the 
plantation  may  inflict  ten  lashes  for  every  such  offence.** 
"  It  shall  be  lawful  for  any  person  who  shall  see  more 
than  seven  men  slaves,  without  some  white  person  with 
them,  travelling  or  assembled  together,  in  any  high  road, 
to  apprehend  such  slaves,  and  to  inflict  a  whipping  on  such 


•  2  Brevard's  Dij^pst,  24.3.  f  Prince's  Digest,  455. 

i  1  Rev.  Code,  421,  425.  §  IVince's  Di-est.  .312. 

I  2  Brevard's  Dit^est,  254,  255.  ^  Rev.  CNxle,  390. 

••   1  VirjT.  Rev.  (;ode,  422;   3   Mississippi   Rev.  Code,  371  ;  2  Litt.  «Sc 
8wi.  Dig.  11.50;  2  Missouri  Laws,  741,  ucc  .3. 


94  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

of  them,  not  exceeding  twenty  lashes  apiece."*  (4)  Tlie 
possession  of  all  arms  or  weapons  of  defence  is  strictly 
prohibited.  "For  keeping  or  carrying  a  gun,  or  powder, 
or  shot,  or  a  club,  or  other  weapon  whatever,  offensive  or 
defensive,  a  slave  incurs  for  each  offence,  thirty-nine  lashes, 
by  order  of  a  justice  of  the  peace. "t 

There  are  reasons  why  the  same  measure  is  not  adopted 
here  which  was  by  the  Egyptians,  that  of  putting  the  male 
children  to  death.  It  cannot  be  doubted  or  denied  that  increas- 
ing humanity  has  done  much  to  prevent  this.  But  even  if  this 
had  had  no  influence,  there  are  other  causes  which  would 
secure  this  result,  and  prevent  a  measure  so  cruel  and 
wrong.  They  are  valuable  in  the  market.  They  can  be 
sold  and  conveyed  to  places  where  the  danger  of  an  insur- 
rection would  be  less.  The  surplus  population  of  Virginia, 
North  Carolina,  and  Maryland  can  thus  be  removed  to 
Georgia,  Mississippi,  or  Texas,  instead  of  being  thrown  into 
the  Potomac,  the  Rappahannock,  or  the  Roanoke.  But  still, 
there  are  laws  both  numerous  and  appropriate,  all  contem- 
plating the  same  end,  and  customs  that  were  little,  if  any, 
surpassed  in  cruelty  by  the  Egyptian  law  which  ordained 
that  the  male  children  should  be  thrown  into  the  Nile.  Is 
there  not  many  a  mother  who  would  prefer  to  see  her  infant 
son  "thrown  into  the  river,"  (Ex.  i.  22,)  to  having  him  torn 
from  her  bosom  and  borne  away  where  she  would  see  him  no 
more  ?  Is  there  not  many  a  father  who  could  see  his  daugh- 
ter floating  on  the  smooth  current  of  a  river,  a  hfeless  corpse, 
with  more  calmness  than  he  could  see  her  wrested  from 
his  arms  to  be  doomed  to  unpitied  infamy  and  degradation  in 
the  dwelling  of  some  planter  in  Texas,  or  made  to  minister 
to  corrupt  passions  in  a  palace  in  New  Orleans  ?     Would  a 

*  2  Brev.  Big.  243 ;  Prince's  Dig.  554; 

f  2  Lite.  &  Swi.  1150;  1  Virg.  Rev.  Code,  423;  2  Missouri  Laws, 
741,  sec.  4;  Haywood's  Manual,  521.  See  Stroud's  "Sketch  of  the 
Laws  relating  to  Slavery,"  pp.  88,  92,  93,  102. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  95 

father  or  a  mother  have  no  ])leasure  in  looking  on  the  preen 
sod  that  should  cover  the  £rrave  of  an  infant  cliild,  compared 
with  the  ihoucjht  that  he  mii^ht  be  groaning  under  llie  lash 
in  a  distant  land  of  bondage  ?  And  can  the  things  ordained 
in  this  Christian  land  professedly  to  keep  the  slaves  in 
bondage,  and  to  prevent  a  possibility  of  their  asserting  their 
freedom,  be  less  offensive  to  God  than  were  similar  things 
among  the  heathen  of  Egypt  ? 

(5.)  There  is  a  resemblance  between  Egyptian  and  Ame- 
rican slavery,  in  a  remarkable  feature,  which  has  always 
perplexed  those  who  have  written  on  the  subject  of  popula- 
tion— the  increase  of  those  who  are  oppressed.  The  growth 
of  the  Hebrews  in  Egypt,  compared  with  the  native  popula- 
tion, was  such  as  to  lead  to  the  apprehension  that  they  would 
ultimately  have  power  to  bring  the  country  under  their  own 
control.  Ex.  i.  7,  9.  It  was  particularly  alarming  that  the 
more  they  were  oppressed  the  more  they  increased.  Ex.  i.  12. 
It  became  necessary,  therefore,  to  resort  to  additional  mea- 
sures of  rigor,  to  prevent  their  becoming  so  numerous  as  to 
endan2[er  the  government.  Ex.  i.  1 1,  14,  Ifj.  The  similarity 
between  this  increase  and  that  of  the  slaves  in  our  own 
country,  is  such  that  it  cannot  fail  to  have  arrested  the  atten- 
tion of  all  those  who  have  ever  looked  at  slavery.  It  is 
sufficient,  on  this  point,  merely  to  refer  to  the  undisputed  fact. 
The  increase  of  the  population  in  the  free  states,  from  1830 
to  1840,  was  at  the  rate  of  H8  per  cent.,  while  the  increase  of 
i\\e  free  population  of  the  slave  states  was  only  2J3  per  cent. 
A  single  statement  will  show  the  progressive  advance  of  the 
slaves  over  the  free  population  of  some  of  those  states. 

In  1790,  the  whites  in  North  Carolina  were  to  the  slaves, 
2-80  to  1  ;  now  as  1-97  to  1. 

South  Carohna,     1-31  "1;       "         -79"  1. 

Georgia,  1-76  "  1  ;       "        1-44  "  1. 

Tennessee,  13-3.')"   1;       »       319"  1. 

Kentucky.  516"   1;       "       3-2:3"   1. 

From  this  it  is  apparent  that,  in  spite  of  all  the  oppressions 


96  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

and  cruelties  of  slavery  ;  of-  all  the  sales  that  are  effected  ; 
of  all  the  removals  to  Liberia ;  and  of  all  the  removals  by  the 
escape  of  the  slaves,  there  is  a  regular  gain  of  the  slave 
population  over  the  free,  in  the  slaveholding  states.  No 
oppression  prevents  it  here  more  than  it  did  in  Egypt,  and 
there  can  be  no  doubt  whatever  that  unless  slavery  shall  be 
arrested  in  some  way,  the  increase  is  so  certain  that  the 
period  is  not  far  distant  when,  in  all  the  slave  states,  the  free 
whites  will  be  far  in  the  minority.  At  the  first  census,  taken 
in  1790,  in  every  slave  state  there  was  a  very  large  majority 
of  whites.  At  the  last  census,  in  1840,  the  slaves  outnum- 
bered the  whites  in  South  Carolina,  Mississippi,  and  Louisi- 
ana. The  tendency  .of  this,  from  causes  which  it  would  be 
easy  to  state,  can  be  arrested  by  nothing  but  emancipation. 

(6.)  There  is  a  striking  resemblance  in  regard  to  the  mim- 
bers  held  in  bondage  in  Egypt,  and  those  now  in  servitude  in 
this  country.  When  Moses  led  the  children  of  Israel  forth, 
the  number  of  men,  capable  of  bearing  arms,  was  six  hundred 
thousand.  Ex.  xii.  37,  38.  According  to  this  enrolment, 
allowing  the  usual  proportion  for  age,  infancy,  -and  the 
female  sex,  there  were  full  three  millions  that  had  been  held 
in  "  the  iron  furnace,"  in  Egypt.  Jer.  xi.  4.  Thereare  in 
the  United  States  now,  according  to  the  census  of  1840, 
2,480,465  of  a  foreign  race  held  in  bondage.  Of  these 
432,727  are  men  more  than  twenty-four  years  of  age,  and 
391,200  are  males  between  the  ages  often  and  twenty-four; 
and  probably  the  number  of  those  capable  of  bearing  arms 
would  be  found  to  be  nearly  the  same  as  among  the  Hebrews 
whom  Moses  conducted  out  of  Egypt.  As  in  Egypt,  also, 
there  is  a  vast  number  of  women  and  children,  and  of  the 
aged  and  the  infirm,  held  in  a  state  that,  in  the  main,  without 
any  poetic  colouring,  may  be  called  a  "furnace  of  iron." 

II.  The  second  inquiry  in  regard  to  the  servitude  in  Egypt, 
is,  whether  the  interposition  of  God,  in  that  case,  was  such  as 
to  make  it  proper  for  us  to  derive  any  conclusions  as  to  his 
will  in  regard  to  slavery.     He  delivered  the  oppressed  with 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  97 

nn  "  oulstretcheJ  arm,  and  with  great  signs  and  wonders."  V 
la  it  right  to  infer,  from  tliis  remarkable  interposition  in  the 
behalf  of  that  people,  any  thing  respecting  his  views  in 
cases  of  similar  oppression  ?  Is  the  case  sufiicienlly  parallel 
to  lay  the  foundation  of  an  argument  on  the  principle  on 
which  we  are  accustomed  to  appeal  to  the  dispensations  of 
Providence  and  the  course  of  events  ?  We  judge  of  the 
divine  will  in  relation  to  intemperance,  not  only  from  the 
declarations  in  the  Bible,  but  from  the  wo  and  sorrow,  the 
poverty,  rags,  and  disease,  which  God  in  his  Providence 
brings  upon  the  drunkard.  Is  it  right,  on  similar  principles, 
to  judge  of  his  sentiments  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  from  one 
of  the  most  direct  and  remarkable  interpositions  of  heaven  in 
Imman  aflairs,  which  has  ever  occurred  ?  Here  stands  in  his 
word  the  record  of  these  great  and  wonderful  facts  in  history 
— millions  of  slaves  delivered  by  direct  divine  interposition  ; 
a  series  of  most  overwhelming  calamities  on  those  who  held 
them  in  bondage  ;  frequent  allusions  to  the  event  in  the  sub- 
sequent inspired  writings ;  a  mighty  arm  stretched  out  from 
heaven  to  conduct  the  oj)pressed  and  the  down-trodden  to  a 
land  of  freedom.  What  are  we  to  infer  from  thrse  things? 
Did  God  regard  that ;  does  he  regard  a  similar  institution 
now,  as  a  good  arrangement,  and  as  one  on  which  he  is  dis- 
posed to  smile,  and  which  he  desires  should  be  })erpetuated 
for  the  good  of  mankind  ?  Let  the  following  facts  in  the 
case  be  considered  : 

(1.)  It  would  have  been  as  just  for  the  Egyptians  to  retain 
the  Hebrews  in  bondage,  as  it  is  for  white  Americans  to 
retain  the  African  race.  All  the  right  in  either  case  is 
derived  from  mere  power.  In  the  case  of  the  Egyptians,  it 
could  not  be  pretended  that  they  had  a  right  to  enslave  the 
nation  because  they  had  purchased  Joseph  some  hundreds 
of  years  before;  and  as  little  can  the  right  to  enslave  the 
posterity  of  the  Africans  be  founded  on  the  fact  that  their 
ancestors  were  purchased  in  Congo.  It  could  not  be  pre- 
tended that  they  had  a  right  to  enslave  them  because  they 

9 


98  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

were  a  foreign  race,  or  were  of  different  complexion ;  and  as 
little  can  the  plea  be  set  up  to  vindicate  the  retaining  of  the 
African  in  bondage.  If  the  vindication  of  slavery  now  should 
be  set  up  on  that  ground,  it  would  be  difficult  to  see  why  it 
would  not  apply  in  the  case  of  the  Hebrews  as  well  as  of  the 
African  race ;  na}',  it  would  be  difficult  to  see  why  this  might 
not  be  imbodied  in  a  general  principle — that  all  foreigners, 
of  a  different  complexion  from  our  own,  may  be  lawfully 
enslaved.  Farther;  if  the  right  to  retain  the  African  race  in 
bondage  be  based  on  the  laws  of  the  land,  the  same  plea 
might  have  been  urged  in  the  case  of  the  Hebrews.  Under 
the  authority  of  Pharaoh,  it  had  become  the  law  of  the  land 
that  the  Hebrews  should  be  held  to  servitude.  If  it  be 
further  urged  that  it  is  difficult  to  free  the  slaves  in  this 
country  ;  that  emancipation  might  be  attended  with  peril  to 
the  master ;  that  to  let  loose  two  millions  and  a  half  of  slaves 
from  a  state  of  deep  degradation  might  be  fraught  with  dan- 
gerous consequences,  the  same  thing  might  have  been  urged 
with  equal  force  in  regard  to  the  servitude  in  Egypt.  The 
simple  truth  is,  that  the  sole  claim  in  either  case  is  founded 
in  power,  and  that  is  just  the  same  in  the  one  instance  as  the 
other.  The  Egyptians  had  power  to  enslave  the  Hebrews, 
and  they  did  it ;  the  American  has  power  to  hold  the  African 
in  bondage,  and  he  does  it.  The  right  is  as  clear  in  the  one 
case  as  in  the  other ;  and  if  God  approves  of  slavery  as  it 
exists  now  in  this  land,  he  must  have  approved  the  same 
thing  in  Egypt. 

Will  it  be  said  that  the  Hebrews  were  his  chosen  people, 
and  that  he  was  especially  displeased  with  the  Egyptians, 
not  because  the  oppression  was  itself  wrong,  but  because 
they  oppressed  his  friends  ?  And  are  not  the  Africans  his 
people,  (Acts  xvii.  26  ;)  and  is  there  any  thing  that  more  cer- 
tainly excites  the  sympathy  and  compassion  of  God,  than  the 
fact  that  an  individual  or  a  community  is  trodden  by  the  foot 
of  violence  to  the  earth  ? 

Will  it  be  alleged  that  there  is  a  difference  in  the  two 


SCKIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVKUY.  99 

cases,  because  the  slaves  in  Egypt  were  held  not  by  indivi- 
duals but  by  the  government,  and  that  there  was  no  claim  of 
property  in  them — that  they  were  not  bought  and  sold  as 
chattels  and  as  things?  If  this  is  alleged,  the  case  is  not 
affected.  God  may  be  as  little  displeased  that  the  head  of  a 
nation  or  a  government  should  do  wrong,  as  an  individual. 
Besides,  if  it  be  alleged  that  the  cases  are  not  parallel  because 
the  Hebrews  were  not  held  as  chattels  and  as  things^  this  is 
all  the  worse  for  the  American  slaveholder;  for,  from  this  very 
fact,  slavery  here  must  be  just  so  much  more  offensive  to  CTod 
than  it  was  in  Egypt.  In  all  the  acts  of  Eg}"ptian  oppres- 
sion ;  in  the  heavy  tasks  imposed  ;  in  the  grievous  burdens 
laid  on  the  Hebrews  ;  in  the  murder  by  authority  of  law  of 
all  their  male  children,  the  refinement  of  cruelty  was  never 
thought  of  which  has  become  essential  in  American  slavery — 
that  of  reducing  a  man  to  a  chattel ;  an  immortal  soul  to  a 
thing.  The  Hebrews  were  oppressed  inen,  they  were  not 
chattels  and  things.  And  if  God  frowned  upon  slavery  as 
it  was  then  ;  if  he  brought  ten  successive  judgments  upon  a 
heathen  nation  in  order  to  express  his  abhorrence  of  the 
system,  and  to  deliver  an  enslaved  people,  is  it  not  right  to 
infer  that  he  has  at  least  as  deep  feelings  of  indignation 
against  a  system  of  deeper  degradation  and  oppression  in  a 
Christian  land  ? 

(2.) The  divine  declarations  in  regard  to  Egyptian  bondage, 
and  all  the  expressions  of  disapprobation  of  what  occurred  in 
Egypt,  are  applicable  to  the  system  of  things  in  this  country. 
No  one  can  pretend  that  God  approved  of  servitude  as  it  was 
in  Egypt,  or  that  the  measures  which  were  adopted  to  per- 
petuate it  were  pleasing  in  his  sight.  The  heavy  burdens  ; 
the  withholding  of  the  material  for  work,  and  yet  exacting 
the  full  amount  which  had  been  before  roquired  ;  the  murder 
of  the  male  children  ;  and  the  entire  series  of  acts  designed  to 
keep  them  from  insurrection,  and  to  prevent  their  joining  an 
enemy,  are  all  recorded  with  expressions  of  decided  dis- 
approbation.    And  can  we  suppose  that  God  will  be  pleased 


100  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

with  similar  acts  in  this  Christian  country  ;  acts  that  have  in 
a  great  measure  the  same  ends  in  view — to  retain  nearly 
three  millions  of  people  in  a  state  of  degradation  and  bond- 
age ?  A  vast  and  complicated  system  of  arrangements,  as 
has  already  been  remarked,  exists  in  the  United  States,  ail 
having  for  their  object  precisely  the  same  thing  which  was 
contemplated  in  Egypt — designed  to  perpetuate  the  system  ; 
to  place  those  held  in  bondage  in  such  a  condition  that  they 
can  neither  combine  to  assert  their  own  Hberty.  nor  be  in  a 
situation  to  join  the  army  of  an  enemy  should  one  invade  the 
land.  Among  these  arrangements  are  all  those  which  are 
made  to  keep  the  slaves  in  ignorance  ;  to  withhold  the  Bible 
from  them  ;  to  prevent  their  being  taught  to  read ;  to  withhold 
arms  from  them ;  to  forbid  assemblages  even  for  worship 
without  such  a  survdllanee  as  to  prevent  all  danger  of  com- 
binations ;  to  prohibit  their  going  to  other  plantations  without 
a  passport ;  to  check  and  arrest  and  punish  all  of  their  own 
colour,  or  of  a  different  colour,  who  would  acquaint  them  with 
their  numbers,  their  power,  and  their  rights  ;  to  put  down 
all  effort  for  the  recovery  of  their  liberty,  and  to  bring  back  to 
servitude,  to  lodge  in  prison,  or  to  manacle,  scourge,  or  kill 
those  who  have  attempted  to  escape.  These,  and  numerous 
similar  things,  all  contemplate  precisely  the  same  end  which 
was  contemplated  by  the  arrangements  made  at  the  court  of 
Pharaoh  ;  and  can  we  suppose  that  thej'-  are  more  pleasing 
to  God  in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other  ?  Has  the  lapse  of 
three  thousand  and  five  hundred  years  served  to  reconcile  the 
divine  Mind  to  such  measures  ?  Are  they  more  agreeable 
to  the  Ruler  of  the  nations  because  they  are  resorted  to  in  a 
land  of  liberty,  and  under  the  hght  of  the  Christian  revela- 
tion ?  Were  they  wrong  under  the  heathen  Pharaoh  ;  are 
they  right  under  Christian  masters  and  legislators  ? 

Let  it  be  remembered,  too,  that  oppressive  and  cruel  as  were 
the  measures  resorted  to  in  Egypt  to  perpetuate  slavery,  there 
are  wrongs  existing  in  this  country,  under  the  sanction  of 
law,  and  which  are  regarded  as  essential  to  the  system,  which 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVF.RY.  101 

were  unknown  there.  In  Eg-ypt,  there  was  no  withhold- 
ings of  the  Bible;  there  is  not  known  to  have  been  any  pro- 
hibition to  lenrn  to  read  ;  there  was  no  separation  of  husband 
and  wife,  and  parent  and  child,  to  be  sold  into  distant  servi- 
tude ;  there  was  no  arrangement  for  confining  in  prison  those 
who  attempted  to  escape  ;  there  was  no  shooting  down  the 
poor  manwho  endeavoured  to  assert  his  freedom  ;  there  was 
no  pursuit  of  those  who  fled  for  liberty,  with  bloodhounds. 
Can  we  believe  that  God  frowned  on  the  arrangements  made 
in  Eirypt  to  perpetuate  slavery,  and  that  he  can  look  with 
complacency  on  these  arrangements  of  augmented  cruelty  and 
oppression  in  our  own  land  ? 

(3.)  The  calamities  brought  upon  the  Egyptians  for  holding 
a  foreign  people  in  bondage,  and  for  the  measures  to  which 
they  resorted  to  perpetuate  that  bondage,  were  an  expression 
of  the  views  which  God  entertained  of  the  system.  What 
those  calamities  were,  it  is  not  needful  to  state.  They  con- 
sisted, in  general,  of  ten  successive  judgments,  the  most  deso- 
lating, the  most  annoying,  the  most  humbling  to  the  pride  of  a 
haughty  people,  and  the  best  adapted  to  spread  lamentation 
and  wo  through  a  nation,  which  the  human  mind  can  con- 
ceive. The  waters  of  the  land  turned  into  rivers,  pools,  and 
lakes  of  blood ;  offensive  and  loathsome  reptiles  creeping  into 
the  very  pa!aces,  and  filling  all  the  implements  for  preparing 
the  food  even  of  the  royal  household  ;  clouds  of  locusts  that 
devoured  every  green  thing ;  offensive  vermin  swarming 
eyer}'where ;  storms  of  hail  that  destroyed  the  labours  of 
man ;  disease  that  swept  off  the  cattle,  and  the  destroying 
angel  passing  in  the  dead  of  night  through  all  the  land  of 
Egypt,  cutting  off  everywhere  the  first-born,  and  filling  every 
house  with  grief; — these  were  the  expressions  of  the  divine 
sense  of  the  wrongs  endured  by  the  foreign  race  which  had 
been  reduced  to  servitude. 

Can  any  thing  be  inferred  from  this  in  reference  to  the  divine 
views  regarding  slavery  now  ?  We  are  not  now,  indeed,  to 
expect  miraculous  interpositions  of  this  nature.     But  what 

9* 


102  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

if  it  shall  be  found  that  the  existence  of  slavery  is  attended 
with  a  series  of  inevitable  calamities  to  a  country  ?  What 
if  it  leads  to  a  diminished  or  enfeebled  population  ?  What 
if  it  is  destructive  to  the  interests  of  industry,  morals, 
education,  and  rehgion  ?  What  if  its  effects  are  seen  in 
wasted  fields,  in  a  crippled  commerce,  in  a  destruction  of  the 
interests  of  manufacture,  in  ruined  credit,  in  bankrupt  indivi- 
duals and  states  ?  What  if,  where  the  course  of  a  river 
winds  along  through  lands  equally  favoured  by  nature,  one 
bank  shall  be  adorned  with  smiling  villages,  and  colleges,  and 
churches,  and  the  general  aspect  of  neatness,  thrift,  and 
order ;  and  the  other  shall  wear  the  aspect  of  ignorance, 
irrehgion,  neglect,  and  desolation  ?  Are  we  to  be  forbidden 
to  draw  an  inference  as  to  the  views  which  God  entertains  of 
the  system  ?  Is  it  wrong  to  draw  such  an  inference  with  as 
much  certainty  as  we  do  from  the  divine  interpositions  in 
Egypt  ?  Are  not  desolate  fields,  and  a  crippled  commerce, 
and  the  evils  of  bankruptcy,  and  blightings  and  mildews,  as 
really  the  act  of  God,  as  were  the  murrain,  and  the  hail,  and 
the  flight  of  locusts,  and  the*  passing  of  the  destroying  angel 
over  Egypt  ?  Are  they  not  as  certain  indications  of  the  will 
of  God,  as  the  rags,  and  the  poverty,  and  the  babblings,  and 
the  bloated  and  haggard  form  of  the  drunkard  ?  If  slavery 
brings  up  a  brood  of  evils  upon  a  land  that  'out-venom  all 
the  worms  of  Nile  ;'  that  are  more  offensive  and  ruinous 
than  crawhng  reptiles  and  annoying  vermin,  and  that  cause 
more  permanent  desolation  than  the  sweepings  of  a  hail- 
storm, is  it  an  unfair  inference  that  it  is  hateful  in  the  sight 
of  God  ? 

(4.)  The  deliverance  of  the  HebreAvs  from  Egyptian  bond- 
age shows  what  is  the  divine  estimate  of  every  similar 
system.  He  brought  out  an  oppressed  people  by  his  own 
hand.  He  did  it  amidst  great  judgments  and  mighty  won- 
ders. He  did  it  in  the  most  public  manner,  and  so  that  the 
fact  of  Ilia  interposition  could  not  be  mistaken.  He  did  it  in 
such  a  way  that  the  act  might  be  known  among  the  nations 


SCRIPTURAL    VIi:WS    OF    SLAVKRV.  103 

of  the  earth,  and  that  a  pennancnt  record  might  be  made  of 
his  interposition,  in  order  that  all  future  ng^es  might  under- 
stand what  he  had  done.  He  did  it  by  brimming  heavier 
judgments  upon  those  who  had  been  the  oppressors,  than  had 
before  befallen  any  nation.  By  this  public  act,  he  testified 
to  the  nations  of  the  earth  how  much  he  hated  the  system. 
By  this  act,  as  well  as  by  his  own  solemn  declarations,  he 
showed  that  he  valued  the  freedom  of  the  oppressed  more 
than  he  did  the  prosperity  of  the  royal  house  of  Pharaoh,  the 
preservation  of  the  harvests  of  Egypt,  the  lives  of  their 
iirst-born,  or  even  the  whole  land  of  Egypt  and  Ethiopia. 

<♦  I  am  Jehovah,  thy  God  ; 

The  Holy  One  of  Israel,  thy  Saviour : 

/  gave  Egypt  for  thy  ransom, 

Ethiopia  and  Scba  for  thee." — Isa.  xliii.  3. 

That  is,  Egypt  was  regarded  as  having  been  given  up  to 
destruction  and  desolation,  instead  of  the  Hebrews.  One  of 
them  must  perish — either  the  Hebrews,  under  the  hand  of 
the  oppressor,  or  the  Egyptians  by  the  hand  of  their  deli- 
verer;  and  Gk)d  chose  that  Egypt,  though  so  much  more 
mighty  and  powerful,  should  be  reduced  to  desolation,  rather 
than  the  enslaved  nation  of  the  HebreAvs.  All  the  wealth  of 
Egypt,  includinir  her  armies  and  her  king,  was  not  worth  so 
much,  in  the  divine  estimate,  as  the  liberty  of  the  oppressed ; 
and  God  chose  that  the  one  should  be  sacrificed  in  order  to 
secure  the  other — ^just  as  it  maij  yet  appear  that  God  values 
the  lih)erty  of  the  oppressed  in  our  own  land  more  than  he 
does  the  beauty  of  smiling  harvests,  a  prosperous  commerce, 
and  the  happiness  and  the  wealth  of  the  planter ;  and  may  yet 
suffer  blighting  and  curses  to  come  over  the  fairest  portions 
of  our  own  country,  in  order  that  the  oppressed  may  be  suf- 
fered to  go  free.  Nor  did  he  wait  for  a  gradual  deUverance; 
nor  did  he  recommend  a  preparation  for  freedom ;  nor  did  he 
utter  any  apology  for  the  continuance  of  servitude,  from  the 
difficulties   attending   emancipation.     He   demanded  of  the 


104  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

oppressors  that  his  people  should  be  allowed  to  go  free  at 
once.  When  they  would  not  permit  this,  the  storms  of  his 
wrath  burst  upon  the  guilty  nation,  and  he  led  out  his  people 
triumphantly  under  his  own  hand. 

The  conclusions  which  I  am  authorized  to  draw  from  this 
signal  interposition  in  behalf  of  an  oppressed  people,  are,  that 
such  oppression  is  hateful  to  God ;  that  the  acts  of  cruelty 
and  wickedness  which  are  necessary  to  perpetuate  such 
oppression,  are  the  objects  of  his  abhorrence  ;  that  wherever 
the  same  system  of  things  exists  which  did  there,  it  must  be 
equally  offensive  to  him ;  that  it  is  his  will  that,  if  a  foreign 
race  have  been  held  in  servitude,  they  should  be  allowed  to 
go  free  ;  and  that  if  those  who  hold  them  in  bondage  will  not 
allow  them  to  go  free  when  he  commands  it,  he  will,  by  his 
own  providence,  bring  such  a  series  of  desolating  judgments 
on  a  people,  that,  however  hardened  their  hearts  may  have 
been  towards  the  oppressed  and  the  dowm-trodden,  and  how- 
ever much  they  may  be  disposed,  like  Pharaoh,  to  say, 
"Who  is  Jehovah,  that  we  should  obey  his  voice  to  let  the 
people  go  ?"  (Ex.  v.  2 ;)  he  will  make  them  willing  to  send 
them  forth,  even  if  they  pursue  them  with  their  maledictions, 
as  Pharaoh  pursued  the  ransomed  Hebrews  with  his  embat- 
tled hosts.  If  we  may  draw  an  inference,  also,  from  this 
case,  in  regard  to  the  manner  in  which  God  would  have 
such  a  people  restored  to  freedom,  it  would  be  in  favour  of 
immediate  emancipation. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAM.RY.  105 


CHAPTER  V. 

The  Mosaic  Institutiuiis  in  relation  to  Servitude. 

The  Scriptural  argument  on  which  most  reliance  is  placed 
by  the  advocates  of  slaver}',  is,  probably,  that  it  made  a  part 
of  the  Mosaic  institutions.  We  have  seen  (ch.  1)  that  those 
who  appeal  to  the  Bible,  in  defence  of  the  institution,  make 
the  argument  from  the  Mosaic  laws  prominent,  and  seem  to 
consider  it  decisive  in  the  case.  A  single  reference  here  to 
the  article,  so  often  quoted,  in  the  Princeton  Biblical  Reper- 
tory, will  illustrate  the  usual  mode  of  making  this  appeal,  and 
the  manner  in  which  reliance  is  placed  on  the  argument. 
"The  fact  that  the  Mosaic  institutions  recognised  the  lawful- 
ness of  slavery,  is  a  point  too  plain  to  need  proof,  and  is 
almost  universally  admitted.  Our  argument  from  this  ac- 
knowledged fact  is,  that  if  God  allowed  slavery  to  exist,  if  he 
directed  how  slaves  might  be  lawfully  acquired,  and  how 
they  were  to  be  treated,  it  is  in  vain  to  contend  that  slavery 
is  a  sin,  and  yet  profess  reverence  for  the  Scriptures.  Every 
one  must  feel  that  if  perjury,  murder,  or  idolatry  had  been 
thus  authorized,  it  would  bring  the  Mosaic  institutions  into 
conflict  with  the  eternal  principles  of  morals,  and  that  our 
faith  in  the  divine  origin  of  the  one  or  the  other  must  be 
given  up."*  This  may  be  regarded  as  the  current  method 
of  appeal  by  the  advocates  of  slavery — often  expressed, 
indeed,  in  stronger  language,  and  made  more  directly  to 
bear  on  the  institutions  of  slavery  in  our  country,  but  still 
constituting,  in  fact,  the  same  appeal.  The  argument  is 
usually  alleged  as  if  it  were  decisive  in  the  case.  A  bare 
reference   to  the   fact  that  slaver}'  existed  ;   that  it  was  tole- 

•  Page  287. 


106  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

rated  by  law ;  that  it  was  the  subject  of  express  enact- 
ments ;  that  the  Hebrew  people  might  own  slaves ;  and 
that  it  "  was  no  sin  for  a  priest  to  purchase  a  slave  with  his 
money,"*  is  generally  supposed  to  be  all  that  the  argument 
requires.  There  is  usually  htile  attempt  to  show  what 
slavery  was  under  the  Mosaic  institutions  ;  to  inquire  how 
it  was  modified,  checked  and  controlled ;  to  ask  what  pri- 
vileges were  conceded  by  law  to  those  who  were  held  in 
servitude ;  to  compare  the  Mosaic  system  with  that  which 
existed  in  surrounding  nations ;  and  still  less  to  compare  it 
with  that  which  exists  in  our  land.  There  is  little  care 
taken  to  inquire  into  the  true  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  laws  on  the 
subject,  or  what  would  be  the  effect  on  slavery  in  the  United 
States  if  the  Mosaic  statutes  were  at  once  substituted  in  the 
place  of  those  existing  here.  Yet  it  is  plain  that  all  this  is 
necessary  in  order  to  see  the  real  force  of  the  argument,  or  to 
do  justice  to  Moses.  The  argument  is  brought  to  defend  the 
institution  of  slavery  as  it  exists  among  us.  But  how  can 
there  be  any  force  in  it,  unless  it  be  shown  that  Moses  was 
at  heart  the  friend  of  slavery  as  a  permanent  institution,  and 
that  his  laws  on  the  subject,  if  appUed  now,  would  sustain 
and  perpetuate  the  institution  as  it  exists  among  us  ? 

The  propriety,  therefore,  of  a  somewhat  extended  examina- 
tion of  this  point,  will  be  at  once  apparent.  It  is  impossible 
to  convince  the  advocates  of  slavery  that  it  is  in  any  sense 
a  wrong,  unless  the  argument  which  they  derive  from  the 
Mosaic  institutions  shall  be  met  and  answered.  To  do  this, 
it  will  be  necessary  to  show,  1.  What  the  argument  is  on 
which  so  much  reliance  is  placed ;  2.  To  investigate  the 
Mosaic  institutions  on  the  subject,  that  we  may  understand 
the  system  as  arranged  by  the  Hebrew  legislator ;  3.  To 
compare  that  system  with  slavery  as  it  exists  in  the  United 
States ;  and,  4.  To  inquire  how  far  it  is  legitimate  to  argue 

*  See  the  Letter  of  the  Presbytery  of  Tombecbee  to  the  Conference  of 
Maine,  p.  14. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  107 

from  the  one  to  the  otlier,  or  how  far  the  Mosaic  institutions 
would  countenance  slavery  as  it  exists  in  this  country. 

§  1.   Jriiat  the  arg;umcnt  which  is  relied  ouj  is. 
The  argument  in  favour  of  slavery,  from  the  Mosaic  insti- 
tutions, is  not  commonly  drawn  out  at  length,  but  it  may  be 
supposed  to  be  comprised  in  the  following  particulars : — 

1.  That  slavery  in  fact  existed  under  the  Mosaic  insti- 
tutions, or  entered  into  institutions  which  had  their  origin  in 
a  divine  arrangement. 

2.  That  it  existed  there  unrebuked,  or  that  there  was  no 
express  condemnation  of  it ;  that  there  is  to  be  found  no  ex- 
plicit and  positive  declaration  that  it  was  wrong  per  se,  or 
tliat  they  who  practised  on  the  system  were  doing  wrong. 
The  argument  here  is,  that  whatever  is  incorporated  into  a 
divine  institution,  or  an  institution  under  divine  arrangement, 
without  express  rebuke  and  condemnation,  must  be  regarded 
as  in  itself  right. 

3.  That  there  was  express  legislation  on  the  subject,  re- 
cognising the  relation  of  master  and  slave  ;  giving  permission 
to  purchase  slaves;  directing  the  method  of  their  treatment; 
arranging  their  duties  and  the  duties  of  their  masters  ;  pre- 
scribing their  privileges  and  the  rights  of  their  masters; 
and,  in  general,  legislation  for  this  relation  in  the  same 
way  as  there  was  for  the  relation  of  husband  and  wife,  and 
parent  and  child.  The  inference  which  would  be  derived 
from  this  by  the  advocate  of  slavery',  would  be,  that  this 
relation  was  considered  to  be  as  lawful  as  any  other.  The 
argument  is,  that  whatever  is  made  the  subject  of  express 
legislation  must  be  regarded  as  right  and  proper  by  the  legis- 
lator, or  that  it  cannot  be  inferred  that  he  regarded  it  as 
wrong  or  as  undesirable. 

4.  That  this  arrangement  extended  to  all  classes  of  men 
under  the  Mosaic  system.  Even  the  priests  might  become 
the  owners  of  slaves,  and  it  was  not  regarded  as  wrong  in 


108  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

them  to  '  purchase  a  slave  with  money.'*  The  argument  here 
would  be,  that  a  system  could  not  be  regarded  as  wrong  in  itself 
where  even  the  ministers  of  rehgion  were  allowed,  in  com- 
mon with  all  others,  to  participate  in  it.  Could  God  allow 
one  to  purchase  a  slave  just  as  he  was  about  to  Approach 
the  very  altar,  and  yet  regard  the  institution  as  evil  ?  Per- 
haps, also,  in  this  case,  the  appeal  to  the  permission  given  to 
the  Jewish  priesthood  might  be  urged  to  give  a  sanction  to 
the  fact  that  a  minister  of  the  gospel  may  lawfully  "  purchase 
a  slave  with  his  money,"  and  to  show  that  it  is  not  improper 
that  he  should  lend  the  sanction  of  his  name  and  example  to 
so  good  an  institution.  If  a  Jewish  priest  might  purchase 
and  own  a  slave,  how  can  it  be  inferred  that  the  same  thing 
is  wrong  for  a  Christian  minister  in  the  United  States  ? 

5.  It  would  be  said,  in  addition  to  all  this,  that  there  is  ex- 
press sanction  given  to  the  institution  as  one  that  was  to  be 
permanent,  or,  in  the  language  of  the  Presbytery  of  Tombec- 
bee,  "the  Bible  warrants  the  purchase  of  slaves  as  an  inherit- 
ance for  children  for  ever." — p.  14.  The  passage  on  whieh 
reliance  is  placed  in  this  argument,  is  Lev.  xxv.  44,  45,  46: 
"  Both  thy  bond-men  and  thy  bond-maids,  which  thou  shalt 
have,  shall  be  of  the  heathen  that  are  round  about  you :  of 
them  shall  ye  buy  bond-men  and  bond-maids.  Moreover,  of 
the  children  of  the  strangers  that  do  sojourn  among  you,  of 
them  shall  ye  bu}^  and  of  their  families  that  are  with  you, 
which  they  begat  in  your  land :  and  they  shall  be  your  pos- 
session. And  ye  shall  take  them  as  an  inheritance  for  your 
children  after  you,  to  inherit  them  for  a  possession ;  they 
shall  be  your  bond-men  for  ever." 

This,  perhaps,  drawn  out  at  greater  length,  would  be  sub- 
stantially the  argument  in  favour  of  slavery  derived  from  the 
Mosaic  institutions.  I  have  designed  not  to  do  injustice  to  it; 
and  indeed  I  have  made  it  stronger  than  I  have  found  it  in 

♦  Letters  of  the  Presbytery  of  I'ombecbee,  p.  14. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  109 

any  of  the  books  to  which  I  have  access.  Compare,  however, 
Paulding  on  Slavery,  pp.  19,  20. 

What  now  is  the  real  force  of  this  argument  I  What 
weight  should  it  be  allowed  to  have  in  vindicating  slavery 
as  it  exists  in  the  United  States  ?  What  are  we  to  infer  from 
the  Mosaic  institutions  in  regard  to  the  divine  feelings  to- 
wards servitude  in  our  own  land  ?  Jf'as  Moses  friendly  to 
slavery^  or  was  he  not?  Or  rather,  since  God  was  the  author 
of  the  Mosaic  institutions,  was  he  friendly  to  slavery,  and  did 
he  regard  it  as  a  good  and  desirable  institution  to  be  perpetu- 
ated on  earth,  as  contributing  to  the  best  good  of  society  ?  Or 
if  he  was  friendly  to  slaver^'  as  it  existed  under  the  Mosaic 
institutions,  is  it  fair  to  infer  that  he  is  friendly  to  it  as  it 
exists  in  the  United  States  ? 

Now  it  will  be  apparent  that,  in  order  to  the  validity  of  the 
argument  in  favour  of  slavery  from  the  Mosaic  institutions,  it 
is  essential  that  the  following  points  be  made  clear,  viz. : — 

1.  That  it  was  regarded  by  Moses  as  in  itself  a  good 
thing ;  a  thing  which  it  would  have  been  proper  for  him 
to  originate  if  he  had  not  found  it  already  in  existence. 
For  it  may  be  conceived,  that,  for  certain  reasons,  he  might 
have  regarded  it  as  proper  to  tolerate  that  which  he  found 
in  existence,  and  which  could  not  be  at  once  removed,  but 
which  he  did  not  regard  in  itself  as  good  or  right,  and  which 
he  would  by  no  means  have  originated.  The  true  inquiry 
here,  therefore,  should  be,  whether  we  can  find  in  his  ar- 
rangements, any  evidence  that  he  regarded  it  per  se  as  good 
and  desirable  J  or  any  evidence  that  he  would  have  originatfd 
it  as  conducive  to  the  valuable  ends  which  he  had  in  view. 
Can  we  infer  from  the  Mosaic  arrangements  that  he  would 
have  the  system  originated  now  where  it  does  not  already 
exist,  or  perpetuated  where  it  can  easily  be  abohshed  ? 

2.  It  must  be  shown  that  God  approved  the  system  as  a 
good  and  desirable  one.  It  must  be  made  apparent  that  he 
did  not  regard  it  as  among  the  evils  that  were  to  be  rt-moved 
as  speedily  as  practicable,  consistently  with  tlie  preservation 

10 


110  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

of  jrreat  interests  which  he  desired  should  be  secured. 
There  must  be  some  declaration,  or  some  arrangement,  by 
which  it  may  be  fairly  inferred  that  it  is  a  good  per  se,  and 
not  such  an  institution  that  he  would  wish  it  to  be  removed. 
This  might  be  inferred,  if  he  made  arrangements  for  its  per- 
petuity ;  if  he  commanded  a  system  or  set  of  doctrines  to  be 
propagated  which  would  lead  to  its  perpetuity  or  the  enlarge- 
ment of  its  influence  ;  if  he  instituted  nothing  to  check  it ; 
if  the  fair  operation  of  the  institutions  which  he  appointed 
should  serve  to  perpetuate,  and  not  to  destroy  it.  But  if 
non(^of  these  things  occur,  it  is  not  fair  to  draw  the  conclusion 
that  he  is  friendly  to  the  institution.  If,  on  the  contrary,  an 
entirely  opposite  set  of  arrangements  shall  be  found  all  tend- 
ing to  destroy  the  system,  it  will  not  be  unfair  to  conclude 
that  he  does  not  regard  it  as  a  good  and  desirable  institution ; 
or  in  other  words,  that  the  Mosaic  arrangement  is  not  to  be 
interpreted  as  in  favour  of  slavery.  We  infer  that  the 
church  is  an  institution  which  God  approves,  because  he  has 
made  arrangements  for  its  perpetuity  and  enlargement  on 
earth ;  he  has  appointed  ordinances  which  suppose  that  it 
will  always  be  in  existence  ;  he  has  commanded  doctrines 
and  principles  to  be  inculcated  wl\ich  will  always  tend  to  its 
growth ;  and  if  his  injunction  should  be  fairly  carried  out, 
the  growth  of  the  church  would  never  be  checked,  but  its 
influence  would  continually  expand  until  the  earth  would  be 
covered  with  organizations  of  this  kind.  It  will  be  necessary 
to  find  some  such  arrangement  of  permanency  in  the  Mosaic 
laws  in  order  to  demonstrate  that  he  regarded  slavery  as 
a  good  institution,  and  desired  it  to  be  perpetuated  on  the 
earth. 

3.  It  is  essential  to  this  argument,  in  order  to  show  that 
slavery  is  now  right,  or  that  the  Bible  sanctions  it,  to  be  able 
to  argue  from  the  Hebrew  institutions  to  those  in  this 
country.  It  is  necessary  to  show  that  the  Mosaic  arrange- 
ments in  regard  to  the  institution  were  such  as  to  justify  those 
which  are  found  indispensable  now  for  its  perpetuity.     It  is 


SCRIPTURAL    VIl.WS    OF    SLAVKRY.  Ill 

necessary  to  show  that  the  laws  respecting  shivery  under  the 
Mosaic  code  and  in  this  hmd  are  so  similar  that  an  argument 
which  would  prove  that  slavery  was  proper  as  it  was  then, 
demonstrates  that  it  is  proper  as  it  is  now.  This  is  essential, 
because  the  very  purpose  for  which  an  appeal  is  made  to  the 
Mosaic  laws  by  the  advocate  of  slavery  is  to  show  that  it  is 
right  now,  and  as  it  exists  in  the  United  Slates.  There  must 
be,  therefore,  in  order  to  make  the  argument  valid,  such  a  re- 
semblance as  to  make  it  proper  to  reason  from  one  to  the 
other.  If  the  Mosaic  institution  was  a  very  diOerent  thing 
from  slavery  in  our  country ;  if  it  was  organized  on  different 
principles  and  for  different  objects  ;  if  it  varied  essentially 
in  its  arrangements  ;  and  if  it  tended  to  a  different  result,  it 
is  evidently  improper  to  argue  from  one  to  the  other.  In  one 
word,  if  there  was  an  arn\pgement  in  the  one  which  tended 
to  its  speedy  abolition^  it  is  not  fair  to  infer  that  the  arrange- 
ments in  the  other  which  contemplate  its  perpetuity,  arc 
right. 

4.  It  is  essential  to  this  argument  from  the  Mosaic  institu- 
tions, to  prove  that  what  is  tolerated  at  one  period  of  the 
world  is  always  right ;  that  what  was  tolerated  three  thou- 
sand years  ago,  under  the  Hebrew  system  of  legislation,  is 
proper  under  the  Gospel.  The  argument  implies  that  what 
is  allowed  at  one  period  of  the  world,  is  right  at  all  times,  and 
in  all  places,  and  under  all  degrees  of  light  and  knowledge. 

If  these  points  could  be  made  out,  it  would  be  necessary  to 
admit  the  conclusiveness  of  the  argument  derived  from  the 
Mosaic  institutions  in  favour  of  slavery  now.  The  inquiry 
before  us,  therefore,  is,  were  the  arrangements  among  the 
Hebrews  in  regard  to  servitude  such  as  to  make  this  clear? 
This  inquiry  demands  that  we  examine  with  care  the  laws 
which  Moses  made  on  the  subject,  and  then  compare  them 
with  those  existing  in  our  own  land. 


112  AN    INQUIRY    INTO   THE 

§  2.   The  Mosaic  institutions  in  regard  to  Servitude. 

Previous  to  our  entering  on  the  inquiry  proposed  in  this 
section,  it  is  proper  to  remark  that  Mos^s  did  not  originate 
the  system  of  servitude  which  is  recognised  in  his  laws,  and 
there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  he  would  have  done  it. 
Whatever  may  be  inferred  respecting  his  views  of  the  sys- 
tem, from  his  enactments,  yet  every  thing  in  those  enact- 
ments looks  as  if  he  found  the  institution  of  slavery  already 
in  existence. 

That  slavery  had  an  existence  when  Moses  undertook  the 
task  of  legislating  for  the  Hebrews,  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
We  have  seen*  that  servitude  of  some  kind  prevailed  among 
the  patriarchs ;  that  the  traffic  in  slaves  was  carried  on  be- 
tween the  Midianites  and  the  Egyptians,  Gen.  xxxviii.  25— 
28 ;  xxxix.  1  ;  and  that  it  existed  among  the  Egyptians.  It 
was  undoubtedly  practised  by  all  the  surrounding  nations,  for 
history  does  not  point  us  to  a  time  when  slavery  did  not 
exist.  It  was  one  of  the  earliest  maxims  that  has  come  down 
to  us,  that  by  the  common  laws  of  war,  the  captive  was  to  be 
a  slave  at  the  disposal  of  the  victor.  Thus  the  common  law 
among  the  Romans  says,  a  quo  quis  vincitur,  ejus  servus 
esse  tenctur.  Thus  Thucydides  says,t  "  We  consider  it  to 
be  of  divine  appointment,  and  conformable  to  reason,  that  one 
who  has  subdued  another  should  have  dominion  over  him — 
ov  av  xparj^,  apx^''^'  There  is  even  evidence  that  slavery  was 
practised  by  the  Hebrews  themselves  when  in  a  state  of 
bondage,  and  that  though  they  were,  as  a  nation,  "  bondmen 
to  Pharaoh,"  yet  they  had  servants  in  their  own  families  who 
had  been  "  bought  with  money."  This  is  manifest  from  Ex. 
xii.  43 — 45.  Comp.  51.  At  the  very  time  that  the  law  was 
given  respecting  the  observance  of  the  Passover,  and  before 
the  exode  from  Egypt,  this  statute  appears  among  others : 
"This   is   the  ordinance  of  the  Passover:    There   shall  no 

*  Ch.  iu.  I  Lib.  5. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIi:WS    OF    SLAVF.RV.  113 

Stranger  eat  thereof:  But  every  man's  servant  that  in 
boui^ht  for  7»o;?ry,  when  thou  hast  circumcised  him,  then 
shall  he  eat  thereof.  A  foreigner  and  an  hired  servant  shall 
not  eat  thereof."  It  is  clear,  from  this,  that  the  institution 
was  already  in  existence,  and  that  Moses  did  not  originate  it. 

The  truth  in  regard  to  this  point  is,  that  Moses  found  ser- 
vitude in  existence,  just  as  he  did  polygamy  and  the  custom 
of  divorce;  that  it  can  be  no  more  inferred  that  he  would 
have  originated  the  one  than  the  other;  and  that  the  fact  that 
he  legislated  for  the  one  can  be  no  more  regarded  as  evidence 
that  he  approved  it  as  a  good  and  desirable  system,  than  the 
fact  that  he  legislated  for  the  other. 

The  condition  of  Moses  as  a  lawgiver,  in  this  respect,  was 
not  materially  unUke  that  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.  When  the  Convention  sat,  in  1790,  to  frame 
that  instrument,  slavery  existed  in  all  the  Southern  states, 
and  in  not  a  few  of  the  Northern  states  also,  and  had  existed 
from  the  first  settlement  of  the  country.  It  was  extensively 
interwoven  with  all  the  colonial  institutions.  The  people 
had  become  habituated  to  it,  and  nearly  all  the  existing  laws 
tolerated  it.  The  people  of  the  colonies  had,  like  the  He- 
brews in  Egypt,  been  under  oppression,  but,  like  those  same 
Hebrews,  they  had  themselves  held  others  in  bondage.  In 
these  circumstances,  it  became  a  matter  of  necessity  to  legis- 
late on  the  subject,  and  to  admit  some  arrangements  into  the 
Constitution  in  regard  to  it.  Hence  the  slave-trade  itself  was 
tolerated  until  the  year  1808.  Provision  was  made  in  the 
Constitution  for  restoring  those  who  escaped,  from  one  state 
to  another,  to  their  masters.*  An  important  concession  was 
made  to  the  states  where  slavery  existed,  in  regard  to  the 
ratio  of  representation.  Though  the  word  *  slave^  was  care- 
fully avoided  in  the  instrument,  yet  it  was  understood  that 
the  arranirements  in  the  Constitution  pertained  to  slavery, 
and    in    fact   did    really    pertain    to    it.       Vet    it    would    bo 

•  Art  iL  §  4. 
10» 


114  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

very  unfair  to  suppose  from  this  that  either  the  majority  of 
the  framers  of  that  instrument  were  in  favour  of  slavery, 
or  the  majority  of  the  states  which  adopted  it.  No  one 
would  feel  that  he  was  reasoning  safely,  to  infer  from 
that  fact  that  Washington,  and  Madison,  and  Franklin,  and 
Adams  were  the  friends  of  slavery,  or  that  they  would  have 
originated  the  system,  if  it  had  not  already  been  in  existence. 
In  fact,  were  there  no  other  evidence  in  the  case,  it  would  not 
be  difficult  to  make  out  an  argument,  from  the  very  Constitu- 
tion which  they  framed,  to  show  that  they  looked  on  the 
whole  institution  with  aversion ;  that  they  were  not  willing 
to  defile  the  immortal  instrument  which  they  were  framing 
with  even  the  name  of  slavery ;  that  they  would  be  wiUing 
that  future  ages  should  not  know,  if  possible,  that  they  even 
tolerated  it ;  and  that  they  meant  that  the  s}'slem  should 
cease  in  the  land  as  soon  as  possible.  Why  should  we,  then, 
any  more  infer  that  Moses  was  friendly  to  the  system,  from 
the  fact  that  he  tolerated  it  ? 

If  it  should  be  said  here,  that  Moses  had  it  in  his  power 
wholly  to  prohibit  slavery  in  his  institutions,  and  yet  chose  to 
admit  it  as  a  part  of  his  system,  and  that  therefore  it  is  to  be  in- 
ferred that  he  regarded  it  as  a  good  and  desirable  thing,  I 
would  make  the  following  reply :  (1)  It  is  not  absolutely  cer- 
tain that  it  could  have  been  entirely  prohibited  with  ease,  and 
we  know  that  some  things  were  tolerated  under  his  system 
which  were  not  approved.  Thus  we  are  expressly  told,  on 
the  highest  authority,  that  the  practice  of  divorce  w^as  per- 
mitted "on  account  of  the  hardness  of  the  hearts"  of  the 
Jewish  people,  (Mat.  xix.  8  ;)  but  that  this  was  not  according 
to  the  original  arrangement  when  man  was  created,  and  was 
not  an  arrangement  which  God  desired  should  be  perpetuated 
on  the  earth.  The  Christian  precept  utterly  abolished  an 
arrangement  sanctioned  by  the  laws  of  Moses,  on  which  he 
had  carefully  legislated,  and  which  had  been  acted  on,  per- 
haps without  suspicion  of  wrong,  for  many  hundred  years. 
Who  can  prove  that  slavery  may  not  have  been  a  case  like 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVERY.  115 

this  ?  It  will  not  do  to  assume  that  it  might  not  be,  for  it 
wouM  seem  that  it  would  be  as  easy  to  abolish  the  custom  of 
divorce,  and  to  proliibit  it  for  ever,  as  to  abolish  slavery  and 
to  ordain  a  perpetual  prohibition  of  it.  (2)  There  may  have 
been  reasons,  perhaps  a  part  of  them  unknown  to  us,  why 
Moses  tolerated  slavery,  but  which  would  be  entirely  con- 
sistent with  the  belief  that  he  regarded  it  as  an  evil  system, 
and  one  which  he  wished  to  have  abolished  as  speedily  as 
possible.  In  such  a  case,  we  are  not  to  infer  from  the  fact 
that  he  tolerated  it,  and  le2:islaled  for  it,  that  he  reg-arded 
it  as  a  good  and  a  desirable  institution.  It  would  seem 
that  this  was  the  case,  if  the  following  things  should  be 
found  to  be  true  in  regard  to  his  admission  of  slavery  into  his 
system  :  («)  if  it  existed  all  around  him  in  harsh  and  oppres- 
sive forms  ;  (b)  if  the  condition  of  a  slave,  by  being  purchased 
by  a  Hebrew,  would  be  greatly  meliorated ;  (c)  if  the  condi- 
tion there  was  such  as  to  make  it  cm  ohjcct  for  slaves  in  sur- 
rounding countries*  to  place  themselves  voluntarily  under 
Hebrew  masters ;  (d)  if  by  such  an  arrangement  they  nnght 
in  fact  become  incorporated  into  the  Hebrew  commonwealth, 
and  be  made  partakers  of  the  blessings  of  the  only  true  reli- 
gion ;  (e)  if  Palestine  was  made  an  asylum  for  the  oppressed 
of  all  lands,  and  it  was  understood  that  the  moment  a  slave 
crossed  its  borders  he  was  secure  from  having  the  chains  of 
heathen  servitude  ever  riveted  again  on  him,  and  the  whole 
power  of  the  civil  arm  in  the  Hebrew  commonwealth  would 
be  stretched  out  for  his  defence  and  protection  ;  and  (/)  if  it 
should  appear  that  an  arrangement  was  made  by  which  per- 
petual slavery  would  be  impracticable,  and  the  whole  system 
ultimately  abolished.  In  such  a  case,  it  would  not  be  unfair  to 
conclude  that  Moses  would  not  have  originated  the  system  ; 
that  he  did  not  regard  it  as  a  desirable  institution,  and  that 
it  is  not  to  be  inferred  that  it  is  an  institution  which  God 
approves  and  wishes  to  be  perpetuated,  because  it  was  tole- 
rated under  the  Mosaic  dispensation. 


~] 


116  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

That  Moses  did  admit  a  S3'stem  of  servitude  into  his  in- 
stitutions, seems  to  me  to  be  undeniable.  See  Lev.  xxv.  In 
regard  to  the  methods  by  which  native  bom  Hebrews  or 
foreigners  might  become  slaves  under  the  Mosaic  system,  a 
full  account  maybe  found  in  the Constitutiones  Servi  Hebraei, 
of  Joh.  Cas.  Miegius,  sec.  11,  in  Ugolin's  Thes.  Ant.  Sacra, 
tom.  26,  pp.  678,  seq.  The  modes  by  which  those  who  were 
native  born  Hebrews  might  become  servants,  were  the  three 
following:  (1 .)  It  was  a  settled  principle  that  the  Hebrew  could 
not  be  made  a  slave  to  his  brethren  by  loar.  This  prohibition 
is  not  indeed  expressly  found  in  the  laws  of  Moses,  but  an 
occurrence  which  took  place  in  the  time  of  Ahaz,  shows  that  it 
was  a  well  understood  principle.  In  a  war  between  the 
kinof  of  Israel  and  Ahaz,  a  larofe  number  of  Hebrews — more 
than  two  hundred  thousand — were  made  captives,  and  taken 
to  Samaria,  the  captors  purposing  to  retain  them  as  *  bond- 
men,' and  'bond-women.'  Against  this  the  prophet  Oded 
remonstrated,  as  a  violation  of  the  settled  laws  of  the  realm. 
*'  And  now  ye  purpose  to  keep  under  the  children  of  Judah 
and  Jerusalem  for  bond-men  and  bond-women  unto  you  :  but 
are  there  not  with  you,  even  with  you,  sins  against  the  Lord 
your  God  ?  Now  hear  me,  therefore,  and  deliver  the  captives 
again,  which  ye  have  taken  captive  of  your  brethren :  for 
the  fierce  wrath  of  God  is  upon  you."  2  Chron.  xxviii.  10,  11. 
It  was  also  a  settled  principle  among  the  Greeks,  the  Romans, 
the  Illyrians,  and  still  is  among  theMohammedans,  that  their 
own  countrymen  could  not  be  made  slaves.  (2.)  A  Hebrew 
might  become  a  servant  to  another  Hebrew  by  selling  himself 
to  serve  the  other,  on  account  of  poverty.  Ex.  xxi.  2 ;  Lev. 
Txv.  39.  In  this  case,  however,  it  was  specially  provided 
that  he  should  not  be  made  to  serve  with  rigor.  He  was  to 
be  regarded  in  the  light  of  an  '  hired  servant,'  and  a  '  so- 
journer,' and  not  as  a  'bond -servant.'  Lev.  xxv.  39;  comp. 
Deut.  XV.  7 — 11.  This  was  not  allowed  among  the  early 
Greeks,  though  in  the  later  periods  of  their  history  it  was 


SCRirTURAL    Vir.WS    OF    SLAVKRY.  117 

common.*  It  was  piTmitted  among  the  Romans;!  and 
among  the  Germans, :!:  and  was  common  among  the  Gauls. § 
(.*).)  A  Hebrew  might  be  sold  to  his  brethren  if  he  had 
been  detected  in  the  act  of  theft,  and  had  no  means  of 
making  restitution  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  law.  Ex. 
xxii.  8.  ♦' He  should  make  full  restitution;  if  he  have  no- 
thing, then  he  shall  be  sold  for  his  theft."  This  is  in  accord- 
ance wi'h  a  common  legal  maxim — "  Luat  in  corpore,  qui 
non  habet  in  acrey  \\  The  same  law  prevailt^d  among  the 
Egy}>lians,'|  and  among  the  Greeks  also  till  the  time  of  Solon. 
He  prohibited  it  by  the  enactment  "that  the  body  should 
not  be  bound  for  debt."  By  the  laws  of  the  Twelve  Tables, 
the  same  thing  was  enacted  at  Rome.  (4.)  A  native-bora 
Hebrew  might  be  a  servant  in  a  single  case,  in  virtue  of  his 
birth.  If  the  master  had  given  to  a  Hebrew^  whom  he  had 
purchased,  a  wife,  and  she  had  borne  him  children,  the  chil- 
dren were  to  remain  in  servitude  after  the  expiration  of  the 
six  years  during  which  alone  he  who  had  been  bought  could 
be  held  as  a  servant,  except  by  his  own  consent.  Ex.  xxi.  4. 
The  children,  however,  as  we  shall  see,  would  all  be  restored 
to  liberty  on  the  year  of  jubilee.  In  these  methods  onhj 
could  a  Hebrew  be  reduced  to  servitude,  and  in  no  instance, 
except  the  last,  could  he  be  held  to  servitude  more  than  six 
years  unless  he  preferred  it  to  freedom.  It  was  a  ris^ht 
which  was  secured  by  law,  and  which  could  be  enforced, 
that  he  should  be  entitled  to  his  freedom  at  the  end  of  six 
years,  and  in  no  case  whatever  could  he  be  held  as  a  slave 
bevond  the  year  of  jubilee. 

In  the  laws  of  Moses,  there  is  but  one  way  mentioned  by 
which  -Ci  foreigner  coxAdk  be  made  a  slave — that  is,  by  pur- 
chase. Lev.  XXV.  44.  All  kidnapping  was  prohibited  on 
pain  of  death,  Ex.  xxi.    16;  and  it  is  remarkable  that  the 

•  Dio  Prusaeensii?,  Orat.  15.  -f  Sec  Grotius,  lib.  6,  c.  7. 

%  Tacituu  dc  Mor.  Gcr.  lib.  24  §  (Jscsar,  Com.  lib.  6. 

I  Comp.  Joa.  Ant.  book  iv.  ch.  R,  h«*c.  27. 
1  Died.  Siculus,  Rcr.  Ant.  lib.  2,  c  3. 


118  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

Hebrews  were  not  permitted  to  make  slaves  of  the  captives 
taken  in  war.  This,  we  have  seen,  was  regarded  as  common 
laiv  among  the  ancient  nations,  but  there  is  no  concession  of 
this  right  among  the  Hebrews.  The  nations  of  Palestine 
were  devoted  io  destruction,  not  to  servitude;  and  if  they 
had  any  servants  from  other  nations  they  w^ere  not  to  be 
kidnapped,  or  taken  in  war,  but  w^ere  to  be  the  result  of 
purchase. 

Such  being  the  facts  in  regard  to  the  toleration  of  this  insti- 
tution among  the  Hebrews,  the  question  then  arises  whether 
this  can  be  adduced  as  a  proof  that  slavery  is  lawful  now. 
To  settle  this,  it  will  be  necessary  to  examine  at  some  length 
the  Mosaic  institutions  on  the  subject,  and  then  to  compare 
them  with  those  existing  in  our  own  land. 

The  arrangements  of  Moses  in  regard  to  slavery,  found 
scattered  through  his  laws,  comprise  the  following  particulars. 
The  results  of  the  classification  of  those  laws  which  I  shall 
now  make,  and  of  the  connected  view  which  will  be  taken  of 
them,  will  be  to  show  that  he  greatly  modified  all  existing 
systems,  and  that  while  he  temporarily  tolerated  slavery,  he 
originated  a  system  of  enactments,  the  operation  of  which 
tended  certainly  to  exclude  slavery  ultimately  from  the  He- 
brew commonwealth. 

1.  There  stands  in  the  fore-front  of  the  whole  Mosaic 
system  a  solemn  prohibition,  on  pain  of  death,  of  that 
which  enters  into  the  essential  nature  of  slavery,  and  on 
which  the  whole  system  everywhere  is  based:  ^^ He  that 
stealeth  a  man  and  selleth  him,  or  if  he  he  found  in  his 
hand,  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  deaths  Ex.  xxi.  16.  The 
place  which  this  solemn  prohibition  occupies  in  the  Mosaic 
system,  and  the  circumstances  of  the  Hebrew  people  at  the 
time,  deserve  to  be  attentively  considered.  It  is  among  the 
first  of  the  precepts  which  were  uttered  after  the  giving  of 
the  ten  commandments  on  Mount  Sinai.  It  was  designed 
to  stand  among  the  precepts  which  were  regarded  as  ele- 
mentary.      It   was   uttered    in   such   circumstances   that  it 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVKRV.  119 

must  have  produced  a  deep  impression  on  the  minds  of  the 
people. 

"  Thev  had  just  been  emancipated.  The  tragedies  of  their 
house  of  bondage  were  the  reahties  of  yesterday,  and  peo- 
pled their  memories  with  thronging  horrors.  They  had  just 
witnessed  God's  testimony  at^ainst  oppression  in  the  plagues 
of  Egypt  : — the  burning  blains  on  man  and  beast;  the  dust 
quickened  into  loathsome  life,  and  swarming  upon  every 
living  thing;  the  streets,  the  palaces,  the  temples,  and  every 
house  heaped  up  with  the  carcases  of  things  abhorred ;  th^ 
kneading  troughs  and  ovens,  the  secret  chambers  and  the 
couches,  reeking  and  dissolving  with  the  putrid  death  ;  the 
pestilence  walking  in  darkness  at  noonday,  the  devouring 
locusts,  and  hail  mingled  with  fire,  the  first-bora  death- 
struck,  and  the  waters  blood;  and  last  of  all,  that  dread  high 
hand  and  stretched-out  arm,  which  overwhelmed  the  mo- 
narch and  his  hosts,  and  strewed  their  corpses  on  the  sea. 
No  wonder  that  God,  in  a  code  of  laws  prepared  for  such 
a  people  at  such  a  time,  should  uprear  on  its  foreground 
a  blazing  beacon  to  flash  terror  on  slaveholders.  He  that 
sfealeth  a  man  and  sel/eth  him,  or  if  he  be  found  in  his 
hand,  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death.''* 

It  is  not  necessary  here  to  consider  the  particular  irhport 
of  the  word  '  stealeth.'  It  is  doubtless  used  in  the  sense 
in  which  that  word  is  commonly  used — to  take  what 
belongs  to  another,  secretly,  by  violence,  or  by  fraud.  To 
*  steal  a  man''  is  a  phrase  that  will  properly  denote  kid- 
nappinsr ;  that  is,  *to  steal  a  human  being,  man,  woman, 
or  child ;  to  seize  and  forcibly  carry  away  any  person 
whatever  from  his  own  country  or  state  to  another.'!  It 
implies  the  seizing  of  such  a  person  by  violence,  or  se- 
curing him  by  secrecy  or  fraud,  and  appropriating  him  to 
ourselves — his  person,  his  liberty,  his  ability  to  labour,  his 
muscles  and  bones.     It  is,  in  fact,  the  way   in  which   the 

•  Bible  against  Slavery,  pp.  1 1 ,  1 2.  -j-  Webster. 


120  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

great  mass  of  slaves  on  the  earth  have  been  made,  and  with- 
out which  the  system  could  never  be  perpetuated. 

The  crime  referred  to  in  this  law  of  Moses  is  stated  in  a 
three-fold  form — stealing,  celling,  and  holding  *  a  man.'  All 
these  are  put  on  a  level,  and  in  each  case  the  penalty  was 
the  same — dcalh.  This  is,  of  course,  the  highest  penalty 
that  can  be  inflicted,  and  this  shows  that  Moses  ranked  this 
among  the  highest  crimes  known  to  his  laws.  If  a  '  man' 
was  stolen,  no  matter  whether  he  was  sold,  or  whether  he 
was  retained  as  property,  he  who  had  been  guilty  of  the 
crime  was  to  suffer  death. 

It  is  worthy  of  observation,  also,  that  Moses  distinguishes 
this  in  the  strongest  manner  from  all  other  kinds  of  theft. 
In  no  other  instance  in  his  laws  is  theft  punishable  with 
death.  If  property  was  stolen,  there  was  to  be  merely  a  re- 
storation. If  a  man  had  stolen  an  ox,  and  killed  or  sold  it, 
he  was  to  restore  five  oxen  ;  if  a  sheep,  four  sheep.  If  the 
theft  was  found  in  his  hand  alive,  he  was  to  restore  double. 
Ex.  xxi.  1,4.  In  the  case  of  the  theft  of  a  man,  however, 
the  very  first  act  drew  down  the  severest  penalty  of  the  law, 
and  as  long  as  the  man  was  deprived  of  his  rights,  the 
offender  exposed  himself  to  that  penalty.  By  this  statute, 
therefore,  Moses  made  the  broadest  possible  distinction  be- 
tween the  theft  of  a  man  and  the  theft  of  property,  and  his 
statutes  frown  upon  every  law,  and  every  institution,  and 
every  view,  theoretical  or  practical,  which  regards  man  as  on 
a  level  with  the  brute. 

What  now  would  be  the  practical  operation  of  this  law  in 
regard  to  slavery  ?  What  check  would  it  put  upon  it  ?  Or 
what  would  be  the  impression  which  it  would  leave  in  regard 
to  the  views  which  the  legislator  entertained  of  the  system? 
The  following  effects,  it  seems  to  me,  would  be  inevitable,  and 
were  evidently  designed.  (1.)  It  would  show  that  the  legis- 
lator did  not  approve  the  system.  As  slavery  in  all  ages  has 
been  originated,  if  not  exclusively,  yet  to  a  great  extent,  by 
theft  or  kidnapping,  the  solemn  prohibition  of  this  as  subject- 


SCRIPTURAL    VIF.WS    OF    SLAVKRV.  121 

ing  to  the  hiirhost  punishiiunl  known  to  the  laws,  would  be 
a  standing  declaraiion  that  the  system  was  not  approved  of, 
per  se.  ifi.)  This  prohibition  would  be  a  material  check 
on  slavery.  If  all  kidnapping  were  at  once  to  cease,  and 
not  another  man,  woman,  or  child  were  ever  again  to  be 
'stolen'  on  the  earth,  it  is  manifest  that  a  very  essential 
change  would  take  place  in  regard  to  slavery,  even  if  there 
were  no  other  regulations  to  check  it.  The  perpetuity 
of  the  system  would  then  depend  wholly  on  the  prisoners 
made  in  war — if  indeed  the  prohibition  would  not  also  em- 
brace tliis  method  of  making  slaves — and  on  the  hereditary 
character  of  the  institutions.  But,  (3.)  This  solemn  prohibi- 
tion against  '  steahng'  a  man  would  of  course  operate  to  a 
great  extent  to  prevent  the  purchase  of  those  who  had  been 
stolen.  It  does  not  require  a  very  advanced  state  of  morals, 
or  a  ver}'  acute  moral  discernment  in  a  community,  to  per- 
ceive that  it  is  wrong  to  participate  in  what  is  regarded  as 
crime ;  that  it  is  not  right  to  *  receive  stolen  goods  ;'  that  it 
is  not  proper  to  countenance  a  system  that  is  forbidden  by 
the  laws.  If  to  steal  a  horse  be  pronounced  wrong  by  the 
laws,  it  requires  no  very  acute  discernment  to  perceive  that 
it  is  not  right  to  purchase  a  horse  knowing  that  it  has  been 
stolen.  If  the  sale  of  horses  depended  materially  on  the  fact 
that  they  were  all  stolen,  and  the  stealing  were  pronounced 
to  be  a  penitentiary  offence,  the  moral  effect  would  soon  be 
to  break  up  the  traffic  altogether.  The  friends  of  the  laws 
would  of  course  soon  abstain  from  all  such  commerce,  and  no 
good  citizen  would  feel  that  it  was  right  for  him  to  own  a  horse 
at  all.  (1.)  This  prohibition  would  be  in  the  end  an  effectual 
check  against  slavery,  on  the  supposition  that  the  whole  in- 
stitution were  to  be  periodically  abolished.  If  it  were  to  be  a 
standing  statute  of  the  nation,  that  at  the  end  of  every  fifty 
years  every  slave  was  to  be  free,  it  is  clear  that  this  prohibi- 
tion would  soon  put  an  end  to  the  system  altogether.  I  low- 
could  it  be  renewed  ac^ain,  if  it  were  once  abolished  ?  If  it 
were  a  crime  punishable  by  death  to  ateal  a  man,  how  would 

11 


122  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

there  be  the  possibility  of  renewing  the  system  to  any  consi- 
derable extent,  after  the  act  of  abolition  had  taken  effect  ?  If, 
for  example,  in  this  country,  at  a  specified  time,  and  then 
periodically  ever  onward,  it  should  be  the  law  of  the  land 
that  all  who  were  then  in  servitude  should  be  free,  and  all 
kidnapping  should  be  prohibited  on  pain  of  death,  how  would 
it  be  possible  again  to  renew  the  system  to  any  considerable 
extent  ?  Where  would  slaves  be  obtained  in  sufficient  num- 
bers to  cultivate  the  plantations  of  the  South  ?  Is  it  not  clear, 
therefore,  that  if  Moses  ordained  that  all  the  slaves  in  the 
land  should  be  emancipated  on  the  year  of  jubilee,  the  whole 
system  would  be  abolished,  and  that  it  would  be  impossible 
to  renew  it  ?  And  would  it  not  be  manifest  that  he  meant 
that  it  never  should  be,  to  any  considerable  extent,  renewed  ? 
Whether  he  did  ordain  this,  will  be  a  matter  for  subsequent 
consideration.  The  only  object  in  adverting  to  it  now  is,  to 
show  what  would  be  the  operation  of  the  arrangement  if  it 
were  so.  If  this  w^ere  the  fact,  then  it  is  clear  that,  by  the 
statute  under  consideration,  Moses  laid  the  foundation  for  the 
effectual  abolition  of  the  system. 

(2.)  Moses  secured,  by  law,  all  slaves  from  hard  and 
oppressive  usage.  He  intended  that  the  slave  should  be 
regarded  as  a  man  ;  as  having  certain  rights ;  and  as  having 
redress  in  cases  w^here  wrong  was  done  him.  («)  Servants 
were  to  be  treated  with  humanity  and  kindness.  Ex.  xxi. 
20,  21 :  "  And  if  a  man  smite  his  servant,  or  his  maid  with 
a  rod,  and  he  die  under  his  hand,  he  shall  be  surely  pun- 
ished," (Heb.  '  vengeance  shall  be  taken  on  him.')  Compare 
with  this  just  and  humane  precept,  the  laws  respecting 
slaves  in  this  country.  "  Should  death  ensue  by  accident, 
while  the  slave  is  receiving  moderate  correction,  the  consti- 
tution of  Georgia,  and  the  laws  of  North  CaroHna,  denominate 
the  offence  justifiable  homicide.^^*  (6)  If  the  slave  was 
maimed  by  his  master,  he  had  the  right  of  freedom.     If  the 

*  Stroud,  Laws  of  Slavery,  p.  127. 


SCRirXURAL    VIKWS    Ol'    SLA\  KUY.  123 

master  should  injure  liim  in  the  eye  or  llie  loolh,  that  is,  in 
the  spirit  of  the  law,  in  any  member  whatever,  the  servant, 
in  consequence  of  such  treatment,  had  a  right  to  his  liberty 
at  once.  "And  if  a  man  smite  the  eye  of  his  servant,  or  the 
eye  of  his  maid  that  it  perish,  he  shall  let  him  go  free  for 
his  eye's  sake.  And  if  he  smite  out  his  man-servant's  tooth, 
or  his  maid-servant's  tooth,  he  shall  let  him  go  free  for  his 
tooth's  sake."  Ex.  xxi.  2(5,  27.  (r)  In  connection  with  this, 
should  be  noticed  the  numerous  humane  provisions  of  the 
Mosaic  laws  in  reference  to  the  stranger.  I  do  not  think 
that  the  word  stranger  in  the  Mosaic  laws  refers  of  necessity 
to  a  slave,  nor  that  it  would  be  commonly  so  understood ;  but 
the  eflect  of  such  statutes  on  the  treatment  of  the  slave  should 
not  pass  unnoticed  when  we  are  inquiring  into  the  bearing 
of  the  Mosaic  system  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  The  slave 
would,  as  a  matter  of  course,  be  more  or  less  regarded  in  the 
light  of  a  stranger.  He  would  be  usually  a  foreigner.  It 
would  be  felt  that  he  was  away  from  his  own  home,  and  in  a 
land  of  strangers.  Ail  the  precepts,  therefore,  which  relate 
to  the  proper  treatment  of  a  stranger  and  foreigner,  might 
be  supposed  to  have  an  effect  on  his  condition,  and  it  would 
be  not  unnatural  that,  under  the  operation  of  these  precepts, 
he  should  be  in  fact  secured  from  all  the  evils  from  which 
the  stranger  was  secured  by  law,  and  that  the  general  com- 
mands enjoining  kindness  to  the  foreigner  would  have  a 
salutary  influence  on  his  condition.  Among  these  precepts 
are  such  as  the  foUowinor: — "The    stranc^er   that   dwelleth 

o  o 

with  you  shall  be  unto  you  as  one  born  among  you,  and  thou 
shalt  love  him  as  thyself."  Lev.  xix.  34.  "  Thou  shall 
neither  vex  a  stranger  nor  oppress  him  ;  for  ye  were  strangers 
in  the  land  of  Egypt."  Ex.  xxii.  21.  "Thou  shalt  not  op- 
press a  stranger,  for  ye  know  the  heart  of  a  stranger."  Ex. 
xxiii.  y.  "The  Lord  your  God  regardeth  not  persons.  He 
doth  execute  the  judgment  of  the  fatherless  and  the  widow, 
and  lovcth  the  stranger,  in  giving  him  food  and  raiment ; 
love  ye  therefore  the  stranger."  Deut.  x.  17,  11).     "Judge 


124  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

righteously  between  every  man  and  his  brother,  and  the 
stranger  that  is  with  him."  Deat.  i.  16.  "Cursed  be  he 
that  perverteth  the  judgment  of  the  stranger."  Deut.  xxvii.  19. 
These  humane  commands  contain  the  general  injunction  that 
the  rights  of  the  foreigner  were  to  be  respected  no  less  than 
those  of  the  native  Israelite  ;  that  no  advantage  was  to  be 
taken  of  the  fact  that  he  was  in  a  strange  land  and  without 
counsellors  or  patrons ;  that  there  was  no  partiality  to  be 
shown  to  any  one  in  virtue  of  his  birth  or  rank  in  his  own 
country ;  and  that  all  the  protection  of  the  law  of  the  land  should 
be  thrown  around  the  foreigner  to  secure  him  in  his  rights. 
All  this  was  enforced  by  a  reference  to  their  own  circum- 
stances in  the  land  of  Egypt, — a  reference  which  could  not 
but  have  a  happy  bearing  on  the  slave, — for  they  were  slaves 
in  that  land.  "  Thou  shalt  neither  vex  a  stranger  nor  oppress 
him,  for  ye  Avere  strangers  in  the  land  of  Egypt."  "  Thou 
shalt  not  oppress  a  stranger,  for  ye  know  the  heart  of  a 
stranger.''''  Would  they,  when  these  precepts  were  enjoined 
with  so  much  solemnity,  be  likely  to  treat  the  servant  with 
the  same  oppression  which  they  had  themselves  experienced 
in  Egypt  ?  Is  it  not  clear  that  Moses  meant  to  make  use  of 
the  remarkable  events  of  their  own  history — events  which 
could  never  fade  from  the  memory — to  modify  the  condition 
of  slavery,  and  to  make  the  yoke  as  light  as  it  could  be  ?  A 
very  beautiful  and  affecting  exhibition  of  the  prevailing  sen- 
timents on  this  subject,  and  of  the  conviction  that  the  rights 
of  the  servant  ought  to  be  strictly  regarded,  occurs  in  one  of 
the  solemn  appeals  of  Job  respecting  his  own  integrity  and 
the  sincerity  of  his  religion. 

*'  If  I  have  refused  justice  to  my  man-servant  or  maid-servant, 
When  they  had  a  cause  with  nie, 
What  shall  I  do  when  God  riseth  up  ^ 
And  when  he  visiteth,  what  shall  I  answer  him? 
Did  not  he  that  made  me  in  the  womb,  make  him  1 
Did  not  the  same  God  fashion  us  in  the  womb?" 

Ch.  xxxi.  13—15. 


SCRIPTURAL    VlllWS    OF    SLAV  FRY.  125 

(3.)  Moses  modified  the  system  of  slavery  by  securinnr  to 
the  servant,  by  law,  an  important  portion  of  lime  for  religious 
and  moral  imjjrovement.  Durinj;  these  periods  of  time,  ser- 
vants were  supported  by  their  masters,  and  had  opportunities 
for  receivin<x  the  same  kind  of  instruction,  and  enjoying  the 
same  religious  privileges,  as  the  other  members  of  the  Hebrew 
community.  The  law  secured  for  them  the  following  portions 
of  time  : — 

(a)  Every  seventh  year.  Lev.  xxv.  4 — 6  :  *'  But  in  the 
seventh  year  shall  be  a  sabbath  of  rest  unto  the  land,  a  sab- 
bath for  the  Lord  ;  thou  shalt  neither  sow  thy  field,  nor  prune 
thy  vineyard.  That  which  groweth  of  its  own  accord  of  thy 
harvest  thou  shalt  not  reap,  neither  gather  the  grapes  of  thy 
vine  undressed :  for  it  is  a  year  of  rest  unto  the  land.  And 
the  sabbath  of  the  land  shall  be  meat  for  you  ;  for  thee,  and 
for  thy  aervont,  and/or  t/iy  maid,  and  for  thy  hired  servant, 
and  for  thy  stranger  that  sojourneth  with  thee."  Thus,  on 
the  supposition  that  all  the  slaves  in  the  land  were  to  be  free 
on  the  year  of  jubilee,  here  was  an  arrangement  by  which 
during  seven  whole  years  of  their  servitude  they  were  to  be 
released  from  toil.  One  whole  seventh  part  of  their  time  was, 
therefore,  by  the  statute,  made  entirely  their  own.  This  ar- 
rangement would,  in  itself,  be  no  unnnportant  modification  of 
the  system  of  slavery  as  it  has  commonly  existed  in  the 
world,  and  would  make  it  a  desirable  thing  for  those  who 
were  reduced  elsewhere  to  this  condition  to  become  servants 
among  the  Hebrews. 

(b)  Every  seventh  day  was,  of  course,  secured  to  the  ser- 
vant as  a  day  of  holy  rest.  In  the  fourth  commandment, 
(Ex.  XX.  10,)  the  rights  of  the  servant  in  this  respect  are  ex- 
pressly guarantied  :  "The  seventh  day  is  the  sabbath  of  the 
Lord  thy  God  ;  in  it  thou  shalt  not  do  any  work,  thou,  nor 
thy  son,  nor  thy  daughter,  nor  thy  man-servant ,  nor  thy 
viaid-aervant.^''  This  was  securing  for  the  servant  another 
seventh  part  of  his  lime,  and  so  securing  it  that  he  could  not 
be  deprived  of  it  by  his  master  under  any  circumstances.    It 

IP 


126  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

was  not  optional  with  the  master  whether  his  servant  should 
labour  on  that  day  or  not ;  it  was  a  matter  of  express  and 
solemn  statute  that  no  labour  should  be  done  by  himself,  and 
none  exacted  from  his  servant. 

(c)  The  servant  had  the  privilege  of  attending  on  the  three 
great  national  annual  festivals.  Ex.  xxiii.  17.  ♦•  Three  times 
in  a  year  all  thy  males  shall  appear  before  the  Lord  God.'* 
Ex.  xxxiv.  23.  "Thrice  in  a  year  shall  all  your  male- 
children  appear  before  the  Lord  God,  the  God  of  Israel." 
These  festivals  were  the  "  Passover,  which  commenced  on 
the  fifteenth  of  the  first  month,  and  lasted  seven  days,  Deut. 
xvi.  I — 8;  the  Pentecost,  or  Feast  of  Weeks,  which  beg^n 
on  the  sixth  day  of  the  third  month,  and  lasted  seven  days, 
Deut.  xvi.  10,  11  ;  and  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  which  com- 
menced on  the  fifteenth  of  the  seventh  month,  and  lasted 
eight  days,  Deut.  xvi.  18,  15;  Lev.  xxiii.  34,39.  As  all 
met  in  one  place,  much  time  would  be  spent  on  the  journey. 
After  their  arrival,  a  day  or  two  would  be  requisite  for  various 
preparations  before  the  celebration,  besides  some  time  at  the 
close  of  it,  in  preparations  for  return.  If  we  assign  three 
weeks  to  each  festival — including  the  time  spent  on  the  jour- 
neys, and  the  delays  before  and  after  the  celebration,  together 
with  the  festival  iceek,  it  will  be  a  small  allowance  for  the 
cessation  of  their  regular  labour.  As  there  were  three  festi- 
vals in  the  year,  the  main  body  of  the  servants  would  be 
absent  from  their  stated  employments  at  least  nine  weeks  an- 
nually, which  would  amount  in  forty-two  years,  subtracting 
the  sabbaths,  to  six  years  and  eighty-four  days." 

{d)  The  slave  was  to  be  a  guest  at  all  the  family  festivals. 
Ex.  xii.  44.  From  Deut.  xii.  11,  12,  it  would  seem  also  that 
he  was  to  be  admitted  to  all  the  festivals  that  were  celebrated 
in  the  land,  or  that  the  entire  family  was  to  be  present. 
"Then  there  shall  be  a  place  which  the  Lord  your  God  shall 
choose  to  cause  his  name  to  dwell  there  ;  thither  shall  ye 
bring  all  that  I  command  you  ;  and  ye  shall  rejoice  before 
the  Lord  your  God,  ye,  and  your  sons,  and  your  daughters, 


SCRirTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  127 

and  Jfour  men-servanfSy  and  yonr  inairl-scrrants,  and  the 
Levite  that  is  within  your  gates."  If  so,  then  the  slave 
attended  on  the  festival  of  the  new  moo7},  Numb.  x.  10; 
xxviii.  11 — 14;  compare  1  Sam.  xx.  IS,  19;  on  the  fcaat 
of  trumpets.  Lev.  xxiii.  24,25;  and  on  the  great  dcuj  of 
atonnneut.  Lev.  xxiii.  27. 

It  is  not  possible  to  ascertain,  with  exactness,  the  whole 
amouiit  of  time  which  the  Hebrew  servant  would  have  for 
himself,  but  it  has  been  estimated  that  it  would  amount  to 
about  twenty-three  years  out  of  fifty,  or  nearly  one  half  of 
his  time.  A  considerable  part  of  this  was  to  be  employed  in 
religious  services,  when  the  slave  was  in  all  respects  on  a 
level  with  his  master,  and  when  he  would  enjpy  all  the  ad- 
vantafres  which  the  Jewish  relijrion  furnished,  to  elevate  the 
understanding  and  to  purify  the  heart.  The  remainder,  it 
would  seem,  might  be  employed  in  any  way  which  he  might 
choose. 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  we  meet  with  intima- 
tions that  the  Hebrew  servant  might  become  possessed  of  a 
considerable  amount  of  property.  If  he  was  industrious,  and 
if  he  chose  to  avail  himself  of  his  advantages,  nothing  pre- 
vented his  becoming  easy  in  his  circumstances,  or  accumu- 
lating so  much  that  he  could  properly  call  his  own,  that  when 
the  j>eriod  of  '  release'  came,  he  might  '  go  out'  in  such  cir- 
cumstances as  at  once  to  be  above  dependence,  and  to  have 
all  the  resj)ectability  attached  to  citizenship.  In  Lev.  xxv. 
49,  it  is  supposed  that  a  man  who  had  become  poor,  and 
who  was  under  the  necessity  of  *  selling  himself,'  might  pro- 
cure the  means  of  redeeming  himself  while  in  a  state  of  servi- 
tude. "  Either  his  uncle,  or  his  uncle's  son,  may  redeem  him, 
or  any  that  is  nigh  of  kin  unto  him  of  his  family  may  redeem 
him,  or,  if  he  be  able^  he  may  redeem  himself ^  As  he  was 
forced  from  poverty  to  sell  himself,  it  is  clear  that  it  is  sup- 
posed that  he  might  acquire  considerable  property  after  he 
became  a  servant.  In  what  way  this  was  to  be  done,  is  not 
indeed  expressly  specified,  but  there  are   some   intimations 


128  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

in  the  Scriptures,  that  even  the  servant  that  was  bought  was 
to  have  compensation  for  his  labour,  and  there  are  some 
general  principles  laid  down,  which,  if  applied,  would  lead 
to  that.  Thus,  Jer.  xxii.  13,  "  Wo  unto  him  that  buildeth 
his  house  by  unrighteousness,  and  his  chambers  by  wrong; 
that  uses  his  neighbour's  service  without  wages,  and  givelh 
him  not  for  his  work."  Comp.  Col.  iv.  1  ;  James  v.  4. 
If  the  servant  received  compensation  for  his  labour,  or;  even 
if  he  employed  the  time  which  the  law  allowed  him,  to 
earn  money  for  himself,  it  is  evident  that  when  he  emerged 
into  freedom,  he  might  have  had  no  inconsiderable  amount 
of  property. 

In  connection  with  this,  we  may  notice  a  most  humane  and 
just  provision  of  the  Mosaic  law  securing  the  comfort  of  the 
slave,  when,  by  the  hmitation  of  his  service,  he  became  a 
freeman.  It  is  found  in  Deut.  xv.  12 — 15;  "And  if  thy 
brother,  an  Hebrew  man,  or  Hebrew  woman,  be  sold  unto 
thee,  and  serve  thee  six  years,  then  in  the  seventh  year  thou 
shalt  let  him  go  free  from  thee.  And  when  thou  sendest  him 
out  free  from  thee,  thou  shalt  not  let  him  go  away  empty : 
Thou  shalt  furnish  him  liberally  out  of  thy  flock,  and  out  of 
thy  floor,  and  out  of  thy  wine-press  ;  of  that  wherein  the 
Lord  thy  God  hath  blessed  thee  thou  shalt  give  unto  him. 
And  thou  shalt  remember  that  thou  wast  a  bondman  in  the 
land  of  Egypt,  and  the  Lord  thy  God  redeemed  thee,  there- 
fore I  command  thee  this  thing  to-day." 

We  may  also  notice  in  this  connection,  the  fact  that  in  the 
patriarchal  age,  and  possibly  also  under  the  Mosaic  institu- 
tions, the  servant  might  become  the  heir  to  the  pro[)erty  of 
his  master.  Thus  Abraham  said,  that,  in  default  of  his  not 
having  a  son  of  his  own,  his  servant,  Eliezer  of  Damascus, 
\vould  be  the  heir  to  his  property,  (Gen.  xv.  2,)  and  in  the 
Mosaic  institutions  there  w^as  nothing  to  prevent  this. 

These  circumstances  do  much  to  illustrate  the  nature  of 
Hebrew  servitude.  The  large  amount  of  time  which  was 
guarantied  to  the  servant  by  law  for  religious  and  other  pur- 


SCRirTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRV.  129 

poses;  ihc  possibility  of  securing  property  for  himself;  the 
humane  provision  that  if  he  became  free  he  should  not  be 
sent  out  poor  and  pennyless ;  and  the  possibility  that  he 
might  even  become  the  heir  of  his  master,  showed  that  it 
was  the  design  of  Moses  to  modify  the  system,  as  it  had 
before  existed,  and  that  the  servitude  which  existed  in 
Palestine  was  of  a  milder  form  than  that  which  has  existed 
probably  elsewhere  on  the  earth.  Wo  shall  have  occasion 
to  compare  these  provisions  of  the  Mosaic  system  with  those 
which  arc  found  in  our  own  land. 

(4.)  Another  important  arrangement  of  Moses  on  this 
subject  related  parlicularl}'  to  the  religious  privileges  of 
slaves.     Among  these  privileges  were  the  following: — 

(a)  They  were  admitted  into  covenant  with  God,  and  as 
members  of  a  family  were  recognised  as  in  that  covenant,  by 
the  customary  rite  indicating  that  relation.  This  was  an 
express  ordinance  in  the  time  of  Abraham,  and  the  same  is 
found  in  the  Mosaic  institutions.  To  Abraham,  God  gave 
this  command  when  the  covenant  was  established  with  him  : 
♦'This  is  my  covenant,  which  ye  shall  keep  between  me  and 
you,  and  thy  seed  after  thee  ;  every  man-child  among  you 
shall  be  circumcised.  And  he  that  is  eight  days  old  shall  be 
circumcised  among  you,  every  man-child  in  your  generations  ; 
he  that  is  born  in  the  house,  or  bought  with  money  of  any 
stranger,  which  is  not  of  thy  seed,  he  that  is  born  in  the 
house,  and  he  that  is  bought  with  money,  must  needs  be 
circumcised."  Gen.  xvii.  10,  12,  13.  So  also  in  the  solemn 
covenant  into  which  God  entered  with  the  Hebrew  people 
in  the  wilderness,  the  servants  were  expressly  included. 
Deut.  xxix.  10,  seq.  "Ye  stand  this  day,  all  of  you  before 
the  Lord  your  God ;  your  captains  of  your  tribes,  your  elders, 
and  your  officers,  with  all  the  men  of  Israel :  your  little  ones, 
your  wives,  and  the  stranger  that  is  in  thy  camp,  from  the 
hewer  of  thy  wood  unto  the  drawer  of  thy  water,  that  thou 
shouldst  enter  into  covenant  with  the  Lord  thy  (Jod." 

{b)  Slaves  were  guests,  as  we  have  seen,  at  the  national 


130  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

and  family  festivals.  Of  course,  they  would  derive  all  the 
advantage  of  instruction,  and  of  religious  impression,  contem- 
plated in  the  observances  of  the  Hebrew  people.  In  this 
respect,  there  appears  to  have  been  no  distinction,  as  if  they 
appertained  to  a  distinct  class  or  caste.  There  was  no  special 
service  appointed  for  them  at  unusual  seasons  ;  there  were 
no  particular  places  or  seats  assigned  them,  to  keep  up  the 
idea  of  their  being  a  degi'aded  and  dependent  class;  there 
was  no  withholding  from  them  the  instructions  which  the 
law  of  God  gave  about  the  equal  rights  of  all  mankind.  The 
whole  Mosaic  arrangement,  in  this  respect,  was  one  that 
would  leave  the  impression,  that,  whatever  differences  there 
might  be  among  men  in  other  respects,  in  regard  to  their 
religious  rights  they  were  on  a  level.  In  the  sanctuary,  at 
the  altar,  and  at  the  family  festival,  they  were  all  the  children 
of  the  same  Father,  all  sinners  before  God,  and  all  dependent 
on  the  merit  of  the  great  sacrifice  which  was  shadowed  forth 
by  the  blood  of  the  lamb  that  was  slain.  One  of  the  most 
certain  ways  of  mitigating  the  evils  of  servitude  is  an 
arrangement  which  will  show  to  master  and  servant,  as  a 
practical  nialter,  that  they  are  on  an  entire  equality  before 
God.  If  they  may  approach  the  same  altar  ;  if  they  may  sit, 
without  distinction,  in  the  same  sanctuary,  and  partake  of  the 
same  ordinances  of  rehgion ;  if  they  may  be  made  to  feel 
that  they  are  alike  sinners ;  and  if  they  can  be  made  to 
realize  that  God  looks  with  as  much  favour  upon  one  as  the 
other,  one  of  the  most  important  steps  is  taken  effectually  to 
abolish  the  institution.  This  arrangement  existed  as  perfectly 
as  possible,  it  is  believed,  in  the  Mosaic  institutions. 

(c)  Slaves  were  to  be  statedly  instructed  in  the  duties  of 
morality  and  religion.  Every  seventh  year,  called  the  *year 
of  release,'  (Deut.  xxxi.  10,  xv.  1,  seq.y)  the  whole  law  was 
to  be  read  through  in  the  presence  of  all  the  people. 
"  When  all  Israel  is  come  to  appear  before  the  Lord  thy 
God,  in  the  place  which  he  shall  choose,  thou  shalt  read  this 
law  before  all  Israel  in  their  hearing.     Gather  the  people 


SCRIPTURAL    Vir.WS    OF    SLAV  FRY.  131 

t02foUu"r,  men,  and  women,  and  children,  and  the  straus^er 
that  is  within  thy  spates,  that  they  may  hear,  and  that  they 
may  learn,  and  fear  the  Lord  your  God,  and  observe  to  do  all 
the  words  of  this  law."  Deut.  xxxi.  10 — 12.  That  this  law 
included  the  servants  or  slaves  in  its  operation,  is  expressly 
affirmed  by  Josephus.  "When  the  multitude  are  assembled 
together  in  the  holy  city  for  sacrifice,  every  seventh  year,  at 
the  feast  of  tabernacles,  let  the  high-priest  stand  upon  a 
high  desk,  wherein  he  may  read,  and  let  him  read  the  law 
to  all  the  people,  and  let  neither  the  women  nor  the  children 
be  hindered  from  hearing,  no,  nor  the  servants  neither^ 
for  it  is  a  good  thing  that  these  laws  should  be  engraven 
in  their  souls."*  When  the  law  was  publicly  read 
in  the  time  of  Joshua,  and  a  solemn  covenant  with 
God  was  made  by  the  Hebrews  after  their  entrance  into 
the  land  of  Canaan,  all  the  nation  was  present  and  partici- 
pated in  it.  "  And  all  Israel,  and  their  elders,  and  officers, 
and  judges,  stood  on  tliis  side  tlie  ark,  and  on  that  side,  before 
the  priests  the  Levites,  which  bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant 
of  the  Lord,  as  well  the  strans^er  as  he  that  was  born  among 
them.  There  was  not  a  word  of  all  that  Moses  commanded 
which  Joshua  read  not  before  all  the  congregation  of  Israel, 
with  the  women,  and  the  little  ones,  and  the  btrangers  that 
were  conversant  among  them.'^  Josh.  viii.  8:],  ;J5.  The 
word  ^  strangers^  in  these  -passages  would  include  all  those 
of  foreign  birth  that  were  in  the  land,  no  matter  what  was 
their  condition.  Thus  it  is  often  used  in  the  Scriptures,  to 
distinguish  all  of  foreign  extraction  from  native  Israehtes. 
Comp.  Ex.  xii.  49;  Lev.  xxiv.  22;  Num.  ix.  14,  xv.  15,  16, 
29,  xxiii.  :34. 

{d)  The  slave  might  become  a  proselyte,  and  thus  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  full  privileges  of  religion.  Indeed,  this  seems 
not  merely  to  have  been  permitted^  but  to  have  been  contem- 
plated as  a  part  of  the  arrangement.    Hence,  as  we  have  seen, 

•  AnU  b.  iv.  ch.  viii.  ^  12. 


132  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

he  was  circumcised ;  iie  was  admitted  to  all  the  national 
festivals ;  he  was  carefully  instructed  in  the  law.  The 
arrangement  seems  to  have  been  such  as  would  lead  him,  of 
course,  to  become  a  worshipper  of  the  true  God,  and  to  feel 
that  his  interests  were  identified  with  those  of  the  Hebrew 
people.  That  all  this  was  contemplated,  there  can  be  no 
doubt.  The  laws  requiring  them  to  be  circumcised ;  to  keep 
the  Sabbath,  the  Passover,  the  Pentecost,  and  the  Feast  of 
Tabernacles,  all  suppose  this.  But  there  is  no  intimation 
that  this  was  to  be  done  by  compulsion.  It  is  supposed^  all 
along,  that  they  would  do  this  as  a  matter  of  course,  and  con- 
sequently no  arrangement  is  made  by  Moses  for  punishing 
them  in  case  of  refusal.  No  matter  what  brought  them  to 
the  land  where  the  Hebrews  dwelt,  it  was  presumed  that 
they  would  become  worshippers  of  the  true  God,  and  would 
regard  it  as  a  privilege  to  avail  themselves  of  the  religious 
advantages  furnished  them  there.  The  following  declarations 
of  Maimonides  will  show  how  this  was  commonly  understood 
by  the  Hebrews. 

"  Whether  a  servant  be  born  in  the  power  of  an  Israelite, 
or  whether  he  be  purchased  from  the  heathen,  the  master  is 
to  bring  them  both  into  the  covenant. 

"  But  he  that  is  in  the  house  is  entered  on  the  eighth  day, 
and  he  that  is  bought  with  money,  on  the  day  on  which  his 
master  receives  him,  unless  the  dave  be  unwilling.  For  if 
the  master  receiv^e  a  grown  slave,  and  he  be  umviUing^  his 
master  is  to  bear  with  him,  to  seek  to  win  him  over  by 
instruction,  and  by  love  and  kindness,  for  one  year.  After 
which,  should  he  refuse  so  long,  it  is  forbidden  to  keep  him 
longer  than  a  year.  And  the  master  must  send  him  back  to 
the  strangers  from  whence  he  came.  For  the  God  of  Jacob 
will  not  accept  any  other  than  the  worship  of  a  willing 
heart."* 

If  the  enjoyment  of  these  religious  privileges  entered  into 

*  Maimon.  Hilcoth  Miloth,  ch.  i.  sec.  8. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVF.RY.  133 

ihe  condition  of  Hebrew  servitude,  then  it  is  ca?y  to  suppose 
that  Moses  designed  to  make  that  condition  as  mild  and  tole- 
rable as  possible.  We  shall  have  occasion  hereafter  to  con- 
trast these  arrangements  made  by  law  under  the  Mosaic 
institutions,  with  those  made  by  law  on  the  same  subject  in 
the  United  States.  In  view  of  these  dissimilar  arrangements, 
also,  .we  shall  have  occasion  to  ask,  whether  the  Mosaic  insti- 
tutes give  any  sanction  to  the  system  existing  in  our  own 
country  ?  At  present  it  is  sufficient  to  remark,  that  no 
arrangement  existed  which  would  prevent  the  servant  from 
enjoying  any  and  every  privilege  of  religion  which  existed 
in  the  land  ;  that  he  might  make  as  rapid  and  extended 
advances  in  religious  knowledge  and  holiness  as  could  be 
secured  to  any  one  under  the  Mosaic  system  ;  that  he  had 
full  opportunity  for  performing  all  his  duties  to  God  and 
to  his  family  ;  that  in  the  great  and  most  important  trans- 
actions in  which  he  could  be  engaged,  he  had  the  privilege 
of  feeling  that  he  was  on  a  perfect  level  with  his  master ; 
and  that  he  might  feel  that  these  rights  were  secured  to  him 
by  solemn  enactments — by  the  unchangeable  conslUulion  of 
the  land. 

(5.)  A  fifth  fundanienlal  arrangement  in  regard  to  Hebrew 
servitude  was,  that  the  slave  could  never  be  sold.  A  man,  in 
certain  circumstances,  77iJo-A/  be  bought  by  a  Hebrew  ;  but 
when  once  bought  that  was  an  end  of  the  matter.  There  is 
not  the  slightest  evidence  that  any  Hebrew  ever  sold  a  slave ; 
and  any  provision  contemplating  that  was  unknown  to  the 
constitution  of  the  commonwealth.  It  is  said  of  Abraham 
that  he  had  'servants  bought  with  money;'  but  there  is 
no  record  of  his  having  ever  sold  one,  nor  is  there  any  ac- 
count of  its  ever  having  been  done  by  Isaac  or  Jacob.  The 
only  instance  of  a  sale  of  this  kind  among  the  patriarchs, 
is  that  act  of  the  brothers  of  Joseph  which  is  held  up  to  so 
strong  reprobation,  by  which  they  sold  him  to  the  Ishmaelites. 
Permission  is  given  in  the  law  of  Moses  to  buy  a  servant,  but 
none  is  given  to  sell  him   again,  and  the  fact  that  no  such 

1'^ 


134  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

permission  is  given,  is  full  proof  that  it  was  not  contem- 
plated. When  he  entered  into  that  relation,  it  became  cer- 
tain that  there  could  be  no  change  unless  it  was  volun- 
tary on  his  part,  (Comp.  Ex.  xxi.  5,  6,)  or  unless  his 
master  gave  him  his  freedom,  until  the  not-distant  period 
fixed  by  law  when  he  would  be  free.  There  is  no  ar- 
rangement in  the  law  of  Moses  by  which  servants  were  to 
be  taken  in  payment  of  their  masters'  debts ;  by  which  they 
were  to  be  given  as  pledges ;  by  which  they  were  to  be  con- 
signed to  the  keeping  of  others ;  or  by  which  they  were  to 
be  given  away  as  presents.  There  are  no  instances  occurring 
in  the  Jewish  history  in  which  any  of  these  things  were 
done.  This  law  is  positive  in  regard  to  the  Hebrew  servant, 
and  the  principle  of  the  law  would  apply  to  all  others. 
Lev.  XXV.  42:  "They  shall  not  be  sold  as  bondmen."*  In 
all  these  respects,  there  was  a  marked  difference,  and  there 
was  doubtless  intended  to  be,  between  the  estimate  affixed  to 
servants  and  to  property. 

If  it  was  regarded  as  a  settled  principle  in  Hebrew  legisla- 
tion that  servants  were  not  to  be  sold  again,  it  is  easy  to  see 
what  would  be  the  effect  on  the  system.  Before  he  came 
into  the  hand  of  an  Israelite,  the  slave  might  have  been 
transferred  from  one  to  another,  but  here  he  found  a  resting- 
place.  Before  this,  the  ties  which  bound  him  to  his  family 
might  have  been  rudely  torn  asunder,  but  here  he  was 
certain  that  this  would  never  occur  again.  If  he  entered 
into  a  domestic  relation  while  the  servant  of  a  Hebrew ;  if 
he  became  a  husband  and  a  father,  it  was  certain  that  the 
ties  which  bound  him  to  his  wife  and  children  would  never 
be  rudely  severed.  Neither  himself,  nor  his  wife,  nor  his 
children  could  be  sold.  The  family  bond  could  not  be 
sundered  except  by  death.  This  circumstance  would  of 
itself  do  much  to  modify  slavery  as  it  existed  elsewhere  in 

*  See  Constitutiones  Servi  Hebraei,  by  John  Cas.  Miegius,  in  Ugolin's 
Thes.  Sac.  Ant.,  vol.  xxvi.  p.  695. 


SCKll'TURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKKY.  135 

that  age  of  the  world,  and  make  it  an  object  for  those  who  had 
been  reduced  to  this  condition  in  other  lands,  to  become,  if 
practicable,  the  servants  of  a  Hebrew.  So  humane  and 
careful  was  the  Jewish  law  on  this  subject ;  so  averse  to 
sundering  the  ties  which  bind  husband  and  wife  and  parents 
and  children  together,  that  the  law  expressly  provided  that, 
where,  by  the  limitation  of  the  service,  the  husband  and 
father  became  free,  he  might,  if  he  chose,  remain  with  his 
family,  and  share  their  lot.  Ex.  xxi.  2 — 0. 

In  the  Hebrew  commonweahh  scenes  could  never  occur 
such  as  are  constantly  taking  place  in  the  United  States, 
where  families  are  separated  for  ever  by  sales  at  public  auc- 
tion, or  where,  at  the  pleasure  of  the  master,  a  husband  and 
father  may  be  removed  to  a  distant  part  of  the  land,  to  see  his 
wife  and  children  no  more.  It  is  only  necessary  to  read  the 
description  of  such  scenes  as  frequently  occur  in  the  Southern 
states  of  this  Union,  to  be  forcibly  impressed  with  the  humanity 
of  the  Mosaic  law,  and  to  see  the  strong  contrast  between 
servitude  under  that  law  and  slavery  in  our  own  coun- 
try. It  is  hardly  necessary  to  remark,  what  a  modification  it 
would  make  in  slavery  in  this  land,  if  it  should  become  a 
settled  principle  that  a  slave  could  never  be  sold  ;  that  if  he 
came  into  the  hand  of  an  American  master,  he  was  certain 
that  he  would  never  be  set  up  by  the  sheriff  at  auction  ;  that 
he  would  never  be  consigned  to  another  for  the  payment  of  a 
debt ;  that  he  would  never  be  exhibited  and  examined  for  pri- 
vate sale ;  and  that  he  never  could  be  transferred  to  a  slave- 
dealer  and  conveyed  to  a  distant  part  of  the  land  to  endure 
the  evils  of  a  harder  bondage.  Then  he  might  look  upon 
wife  and  children  with  the  feeling  that  nothing  but  death 
could  part  them.  Then  he  would  dread  the  approach  of  no 
stranger,  as  if  he  had  come  to  purchase  himself,  his  wife,  or 
child,  to  be  removed  for  ever.  Then  he  might  solace  his  sad 
hours  with  something  of  the  feeling  that  he  had  a  home,  and 
that  however  hard  his  lot,  this  most  bitter  of  all  evils  was  never 
to  be  experienced  by  him  : — that  neither  he  nor  his  family  could 


136  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

be  SOLD ;  that,  for  the  sake  of  gain  to  his  master  he  could  not 
be  torn  away  from  an  agonized  wife,  or  his  wife  from  him; 
and  that  a  child  could  never  be  snatched  from  his  embrace,  to 
be  manacled,  and  fettered,  and  borne  to  unknown  woes,  more 
dreadful  to  parent  and  child  than  death  itself.  The  slave  is  a 
man,  and  there  are  few  rtien  who,  rather  than  have  a  son  or 
daughter  subjected  to  the  evils  of  slavery  in  Louisiana  or 
Texas,  would  not  prefer  to  see  them  laid  in  the  silent  abode 
where 

*'  The  wicked  cease  from  troubling, 
And  where  the  weary  be  at  rest;" 


and  where 


The  servant  is  free  from  his  master.'"* 

Job  iii.  17,  19 


*  If  such  a  provision  existed  in  the  laws  of  this  land  respecting  slavery, 
a  scene  such  as  the  following  would  never  occur.  The  account  is  given 
by  a  correspondent  of  the  "  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal"  (Methodist), 
and  is  evidently  drawn  from  life,  and  is  such  a  scene  as  must  often  occur 
under  the  system  of  slavery  in  this  land.  There  is  no  laic  to  prevent  its 
occurring  as  often  as  a  master  shall  find  it  for  his  convenience  to  part  with 
any  portion  of  his  slaves.  It  could  never  have  occurred  in  Palestine. 
The  occurrence  took  place  at  Wilmington,  North  Carolina. 

"  There  are  at  Washington  City,  at  Norfolk,  at  Charleston,  and  per- 
haps some  other  places  in  the  old  states  of  the  South,  slave  markets,  where 
slave-dealers  purchase  upon  speculation  such  slaves  as  they  can  obtain, 
for  the  purpose  of  resale  at  a  profit  in  the  extreme  South. 

"  As  I  went  on  board  the  steamboat  I  noticed  eight  coloured  men,  hand- 
cuflTed  and  chained  together  in  pairs,  four  women,  and  eight  or  ten  chil- 
dren, of  the  apparent  ages  of  from  four  to  ten  years,  all  standing  together 
in  the  bow  of  the  boat,  in  charge  of  a  man  standing  near  them.  Of  the 
men,  one  was  sixty,  one  was  fifty-two,  three  of  them  about  thirty,  two  of 
them  about  twenty-five,  and  one  about  twenty  years  of  age,  as  I  subse- 
quently leayied  from  them.  The  two  first  had  children,  the  next  three 
had  wives  and  children,  and  the  other  three  were  single,  but  had  parents 
living  from  them.  Coming  near  them,  I  perceived  they  were  all  greatly 
agitated ;  and,  on  inquiring,  I  found  that  they  were  all  slaves,  who  had 
been  born  and  raised  in  North  CaroUna,  and  had  just  been  sold  to  a  spe- 


SCRIPTURAL    VIF.WS    Or    SI.AVKUV.  137 

(0.)  A  sixth  fundamental  principle  of  servitude  amonc:  the 
Hebrews  was,  that  if  an  Israelite  had  become  poor,  and  was 
under  a  necessity  of  selling  himself  to  a  stranger  or  sojourner 
who  had  become  rich,  he  was,  at  all  events,  to  be  set  at  liberty 

culator  who  was  now  taking  ihcni  to  the  Charleston  market.  Upon  the  shore 
there  was  a  number  of  coloured  persons,  women  and  children,  waiting 
the  departure  of  the  Iwat ;  and  my  attention  was  particularly  attracted  by 
two  coloured  femnles  of  uncommonly  respectable  appearance,  neatly  at- 
tiretl.  who  stood  toijether.  a  little  distance  from  the  crowd,  and  uj.on  whose 
countenance  was  depicted  the  keenest  sorrow.  As  the  last  liell  was  toll- 
ing, I  saw  the  tears  gushing  from  their  eyes,  and  they  raised  their  neat 
cotton  aprons  and  wiped  their  faces  under  the  cutting  anguish  of  severed 
aflection.  They  were  the  wives  of  two  of  the  men  in  chains.  There, 
too,  were  mothers  and  sisters,  weeping  at  the  departure  of  their  sons  and 
brothers ;  and  there,  too,  were  fathers,  taking  the  last  look  of  their  wives 
and  children.  My  whole  attention  was  directed  to  those  on  the  shore,  as 
they  eeemcd  to  stand  in  solemn,  submissive  silence,  occasionally  giving 
utterance  t4»  the  intensity  of  their  feelings  by  a  sigh  or  a  stifled  groan.  As 
the  boat  was  loosed  from  her  moorings,  they  cast  a  distressed,  lingering 
look  towards  those  on  board,  and  turned  away  in  silence.  My  eye  now 
turned  to  those  in  the  boat ;  and  although  I  had  tried  to  control  my  feel- 
ings amidst  my  sympathies  for  those  on  shore,  I  could  conceal  them  no 
longer,  and  I  found  myself  literally  <  weeping  with  those  that  weep.'  I 
stood  near  them,  and  when  one  of  the  husbands  saw  his  wife  upon  the  shore 
wave  her  hand  for  the  last  time,  in  token  of  her  aflection,  his  manly  eflforts 
to  restrain  his  feelings  gave  way,  and  fixing  his  watery  eyes  ujKin  her,  he 
exclaimed,  'This  is  the  most  distressing  thing  of  all!  My  dear  wife 
and  children,  farewell !'  The  husband  of  the  other  wife  stood  weeping  in 
silence,  and  with  his  manacled  hands  raised  to  his  face,  as  he  looked  upon 
her  for  the  last  time.  Of  the  poor  women  on  board,  three  of  them  had 
husbands  whom  they  left  l)ehind.  One  of  them  had  three  children, 
another  had  two,  and  the  third  had  none.  These  husbands  and  fathers 
were  among  the  throng  u{)on  the  shore,  witnessing  the  departure  of  their 
wives  and  children,  and  as  they  took  their  leave  of  them  they  were  sitting 
together  upon  the  floor  of  the  boat,  sobbing  in  silence,  but  gfiving  utterance 
to  no  complaint.  But  the  distressing  scene  was  not  yet  ended.  Sailing 
down  the  Cape  Fear  river  twenty-five  miles,  we  touched  at  the  little  village 
of  Smilhporl,  on  the  south  side  of  the  river.     It  was  at  this  place  that  one 

12*^ 


138  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

in  the  year  of  Jubilee,  and  might  in  the  mean  time  be  re- 
deemed. That  he  was  to  be  free  in  the  year  of  Jubilee  was 
a  fundamental  condition  of  the  sale.  Lev.  xxv.  54.  Equally 
positive  was  the  law  that  he  might  be  redeemed,  and  this,  too, 

of  these  slaves  lived,  and  here  was  his  wife  and  five  children ;  and  while 
at  work  on  Monday  last  his  purchaser  took  him  away  from  his  family, 
carried  him  in  chains  to  Wibnington,  where  he  had  since  remained  in  jail. 
As  we  approached  the  wharf,  a  flood  of  tears  gushed  from  his  eyes,  and 
anguish  seemed  to  have  pierced  his  heart.  The  boat  stopped  but  a  mo- 
ment, and  as  she  left,  he  bid  farewell  to  some  of  his  acquaintance  whom  he 
saw  upon  the  shore,  exclaiming,  « Boys,  I  wish  you  well ;  tell  Molly 
(meaning  his  wife)  and  the  children  I  wish  them  well,  and  hope  God  will 
bless  them.'  At  that  moment  he  espied  his  wife  on  the  stoop  of  a  house 
some  rods  from  the  shore,  and  with  one  hand  which  was  not  in  the  hand- 
cuffs, he  pulled  off  his  old  hat,  and  waving  it  toward  her,  exclaimed, 
«  Farewell  !'  As  he  saw  by  the  waving  of  her  apron  that  she  recognised 
him,  he  leaned  back  upon  the  railing,  and  with  a  faltering  voice  repeated, 
*  Farewell,  for  ever.'  After  a  moment's  silence,  conflicting  passions  seemed 
to  tear  open  liis  heart,  and  he  exclaimed,  '  What  have  I  done  that  I  should 
suffer  this  doom  1  Oh,  my  wife  and  children,  I  want  to  live  no  longer !' 
and  then  the  big  tear  rolled  down  his  cheek,  which  he  wiped  away  with 
the  palm  of  his  unchamed  hand,  looked  once  more  at  the  mother  of  his 
five  children,  and  the  turning  of  the  boat  hid  her  face  from  him  for  ever. 
As  I  looked  around  I  saw  that  mine  was  not  the  only  heart  that  had  been 
affected  by  the  scene,  but  that  the  tears  standing  in  the  eyes  of  many  of 
my  fellow-passengers  bore  testimony  to  the  influence  of  human  sympathy ; 
and  I  could,  as  an  American  citizen,  standing  within  the  limits  of  one  of 
the  old  thirteen  states,  but  repeat  the  language  of  Mr.  Jefierson,  in  rela- 
tion to  the  general  subject,  '  I  tremble  when  I  think  that  God  is  just.' 
After  we  left  Smithport,  I  conversed  freely  with  all  these  persons ;  and  in 
intelligence  and  respectabihty  of  appearance,  the  three  men  who  have  thus 
been  torn  from  their  families  would  compare  favourably  with  the  respect- 
able portion  of  our  coloured  men  at  the  north.  This  is  a  specimen  of 
what  almost  daily  occurs  in  the  business  of  the  slave-trade ;  and  I  hesitate 
not  to  say,  that  there  is  not  a  Christian  in  the  whole  South  who  will  refuse 
to  unite  with  his  brethren  everywhere  in  the  condemnation  of,  and  in  tlie 
most  effective  measures  to  extinguish  the  evils  of  tliis  nefarious  traffic. 
«  Yours  in  the  bonds  of  the  gospel,  A.  C." 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVI.RY.  139 

was  one  of  ihe  conditions  of  the  sale.  The  privilege  of  being 
redeemed  was  secured  to  him  by  law,  and  was  not  at  the  dis- 
cretion of  his  master.  The  right  of  doing  this  was  conceded 
to  so  many  persons,  that  if  the  condition  of  servitude  was  at 
all  severe,  it  would  be  morally  certain  that  it  would  be  done. 
"After  he  is  sold,  he  may  be  redeemed  again;  one  of  his 
brethren  may  redeem  him,  either  his  uncle,  or  his  uncle's 
son,  may  redeem  him,  or  any  that  is  nigh  of  kin  unto  him  of 
his  family  may  redeem  him,  or,  if  he  be  able,  he  may  redeem 
himsrlf."  Lev.  xxv.  48,  49.  Every  thing  about  this  was 
arranged  on  as  mild  and  equal  terms  as  possible,  (a)  It  was 
presumed  that  in  many  cases  the  servant  himself  might,  by 
occupying  the  leisure  time  allowed  him  by  law,  procure  the 
means  of  purchasing  his  own  freedom.  (/;)  The  remotest  of 
his  kindred  might  claim  the  right  to  redeem  him,  and  the 
master  could  not  prevent  it.  (r)  It  was  required  by  the  law 
that  only  a  fair  and  equitable  price  should  be  demanded  for 
his  restoration  to  freedom.  A  just  estimate  of  his  value  was 
to  be  made  in  proportion  to  the  time  which  remained  to  the 
year  of  Jubilee,  and  the  price  was  to  be  fixed  accordingly. 
Lev.  xxv.  56 — 52. 

This  provision  was  an  important  part  of  the  Mosaic 
arrangements  respecting  servitude.  It  is  true  that  it  did 
not  extend  to  those  who  were  foreign  slaves,  but  it  was  of 
much  importance  that  anij  wlio  were  held  as  servants  might 
be  redeemed.  At  all  events,  this  feature  of  Hebrew  servitude 
stands  in  strong  contrast  with  all  the  arrangements  for  slavery 
in  our  land.  Here,  no  one  who  becomes  a  slave  can  be 
redeemed  except  by  the  will  of  the  master.  There  is  no 
common  understanding  that  when  a  man  becomes  a  slave  he 
may  ever  be  redeemed,  either  by  a  relative,  by  a  friend,  or 
by  his  own  labour.  There  is  not  in  any  of  the  slave  states 
of  the  Union  a  law  making  it  obligatory  on  the  master,  under 
any  circumstances  whatever,  to  liberate  a  slave.  If  a  slave 
is  ever  in  circumstances  to  purchase  his  own  freedom,  or  if  a 
friend  is  willing  to  do  it  for  him,  it  depends  wholly  on  the 


140  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

will  of  the  master  whether  it  can  be  done  at  all ;  and  if  he  is 
willing  that  it  should  be  done,  it  is  at  such  a  price  as  he  shall 
choose  to  affix  to  the  value  of  the  slave.  If  the  slave  himself 
has  succeeded  in  any  way  in  purchasing  his  own  freedom, 
and  has  a  wife  and  children  in  bondage,  it  depends  wholly 
on  the  will  of  the  master  whether  he  may  purchase  their 
freedom,  though  he  may  have  ample  means  of  doing  it.  The 
master  has  still  absolute  power  to  hold  them  in  bondage,  and 
there  is  no  authority  to  compel  him  to  part  with  them  at  all ; 
or  even  if  he  is  willing  to  do  it,  to  compel  him  to  do  it  on 
reasonable  terms.  A  right  of  redeeming  himself  or  his  famih% 
secured  by  law,  and  with  the  conditions  on  which  it  might 
be  done  specified  by  law,  would  be  a  feature  in  the  system' 
in  favour  of  the  slave  which  would  do  much  to  mitigate  its 
evils.  It  would  hold  out  to  him  at  least  the  hope  that  he 
might  be  free,  and  would  prevent  the  absolute  and  unbroken 
":loom  of  the  thouo^ht  on  his  soul  that  he  must  be  for  ever 
held  in  bondage,  until  he  is  relieved  by  the  kind  hand  of 
death. 

(7.)  A  seventh  essential  and  fundamental  feature  of 
Hebrew  slavery  was,  that  the  runaway  slave  was  not  to  be 
restored  to  his  master.  On  this  point  the  law  was  absolute. 
"Thou  shalt  not  dehver  unto  his  master  the  servant  which 
is  escaped  from  his  master  unto  thee.  He  shall  dwell  with 
thee,  even  ximong  you,  in  that  place  where  he  shall  choose  in 
one  of  thy  gates,  where  it  liketh  him  best ;  thou  shalt  not 
oppress  him."  Deut.  xxiii.  15,  16.  I  am  willing  to  admit 
that  this  command  probably  relates  only  to  the  slaves  which 
escaped  to  the  country  of  the  Hebrews  from  surrounding 
nations,  and  that  in  form  it  did  not  contemplate  the  runaway 
slaves  of  the  Hebrews  in  their  own  land.  Still,  it  contains 
most  important  principles  on  the  whole  subject  which  could 
not  but  materially  modify  the  system.  This  solemn  and  fun- 
damental enactment  would  involve  the  following  results  or 
effects.  (1.)  No  law  could  ever  be  enacted  in  the  Hebrew 
commonwealth  by  which  a  runaway  slave  could  be  restored 


SCRIPTURAL    VIF.WS    OF    SLAVKRY.  141 

to  his  master.  No  revDluiion  of  the  government,  and  no 
change  of  poKc}',  could  ever  modify  this  principle  of  the 
constitution.  (2.)  No  magistrate  could,  on  any  pretence, 
deliver  up  a  runaway  slave.  From  the  moment  when  the 
fool  of  the  slave  crossed  the  boundary  which  divided  the 
Hebrews  from  ollur  nations,  the  magistrate  became  his  pro- 
tector, and  it  was  his  business  to  see  that  he  should  not  be 
oppressed  or  restrained.  He  was  to  dwell  in  such  part  of  the 
land  as  he  chose,  unmolested.  (-J.)  Palestine  would  thus 
become  an  asylum  of  freedom.  Encouragement  was  given 
to  all  who  chose  to  seek  a  refuge  there,  and  the  land  of  Judea 
was  thus  designed  to  be  an  asylum  for  the  oppressed  of  all 
people.  The  foreigner  who  came  there  voluntarily,  no  matter 
from  what  place,  became,  from  the  moment  that  he  reached 
the  confines  of  Judea,  a  freeman.  •  No  matter  though  an 
Indian  or  an  African  sun  had  burned  upon  him,  that  moment 
he  was  free.'  There  was  no  power  on  earth  that  could  again 
lawfully  oppress  him ;  there  was  none  that  could  lawfully 
compel  him  to  return  to  servitude.  The  whole  authority  of 
the  divine  law  proclaimed  him  to  be  a  freeman,  and,  if  tnie 
to  their  constitution,  the  armies  of  the  commonwealth  would 
ail  rush  to  his  defence,  and  shield  him  from  the  claims  of  his 
former  master.  It  is  not  difficult  to  imagine  what  must  be 
the  effect  of  this  arrangement  on  the  whole  system  of  slavery, 
nor  to  understand  what  Moses  meant  should  be  accomplished 
by  it.  He  designed  that  the  country,  under  Jewish  laws, 
should  not  be  regarded  as  a  land  of  oppression,  but  a  land  of 
freedom.  He  meant  that  it  should  have  this  prominence  and 
this  honourable  distinction  among  the  nations  of  the  earth. 
This  was  itself  a  most  bold  and  independent  principle  in 
legislation,  and  would  be  so  understood  by  surrounding 
nations.  It  was,  in  fact,  a  public  invitation  to  the  oppressed 
of  all  lands  to  flee  from  oppression  ;  an  invitation  to  all  who 
were  held  in  bondage  to  escape  from  their  masters;  an 
assurance  that  there  was  one  country  where  they  would  be 
certain  that  their  shackles  would  fall,  never  to  be    riveted 


142  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

again.  We  may  imagine  what  the  effect  of  this  would  be, 
by  supposing  that  Texas,  on  the  borders  of  Louisiana,  had 
remained  a  separate  and  independent  nation,  and  had  made 
a  similar  proclamation  in  the  face  of  all  the  states  of  this 
Union,  and  of  all  the  world.  If  she  had  enacted,  as  a  funda- 
mental principle  of  her  constitution,  that  no  slave  was  ever  to 
be  restored;  if  she  had  made  this  proclamation  to  all  the 
world  ;  if  she  had  pledged  all  the  power  of  her  armies  and  her 
navy  that  no  one  who  sought  an  asylum  there  should  ever  be 
wrested  from  her  grasp,  what  would  have  been  the  effect  on 
the  system  of  slavery  in  an  adjoining  state  ?  This  result 
would  be  inevitable,  that  there  could  be  no  security  for  this 
species  of  '  property.'  It  would  be  an  easy  matter  to  become 
a  freeman.  Where  there  was  no  danger  of  being  retaken 
and  punished,  the  attempt  would  be  often  made,  and  would 
be  successful.  The  only  reason  why  the  attempt  is  not  con- 
stantly made  now,  and  why  this  kind  of  property  is  not 
regarded  as  wholly  insecure,  is,  that  the  slave,  if  he  escapes, 
is  liable  to  be  recaptured ;  that  there  is  a  compact  embracing 
in  the  parties  to  it  all  the  free  states  of  this  Union,  by  which 
he  may  be  restored ;  and  that  the  places  where  he  would  be 
safe  are  so  distant,  and  so  difficult  to  be  reached,  that  he 
has  no  hope  of  success,  and  yields  himself  to  his  condi- 
tion in  despair.  (4.)  The  law  prohibiting  the  restoration  of 
the  runaway  slave  in  the  Mosaic  statutes,  would  do  much  to 
destroy  the  system  altogether.  It  could  not  but  leave  the 
impression  that,  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  slavery  was  a  hard 
and  undesirable  condition  ;  a  condition  from  which  one  must 
escape  if  he  would  find  happiness.  It  would  operate  to  pre- 
vent a  conscientious  Hebrew  from  subjecting  his  fellow-men 
to  a  condition  regarded  as  so  harsh  and  severe.  It  would  be 
a  perpetual  proclamation  of  the  value  of  freedom.  If  a  man 
already  owned  slaves,  it  would  lead  him  to  ask  whether  he 
ought  to  continue  a  relation,  to  escape  from  which  was 
regarded  as  so  desirable.  And  (5)  we  may  ask  whether  it 
can  be  believed,  in  view  of  this  law,  that  Moses  regarded 


SCRIPTTRAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVERY.  143 

slavon'  as  a  good  and  desirable  institution  ?  If  it  were, 
would  he  not  have  enjoined  the  return  of  the  slave  to  his 
master?  Can  we,  moreover,  regard  him  as  supposing  that 
the  master  from  whom  the  slave  had  escaped,  had  any  real 
right  to  hold  him  ?  If  he  had,  would  he  not  have  enjoined 
his  restoration  ?  Is  not  this  law  in  fact  a  public  proclama- 
tion that  he  regarded  the  shu'e  as  entitled  to  his  freedom, 
and  to  all  the  assistance  which  others  could  render  him  to 
secure  it  ?  Assuredly,  if  Moses  had  considered  this  to  be 
a  good  institution,  if  he  had  regarded  it  as  desirable  for 
the  best  condition  of  society,  if  he  had  suj^posed  that  the 
master  had  a  riii;ht  to  the  slave,  he  would  never  have  intro- 
duced so  extraordinary  a  provision  into  his  code.  He  would 
never  have  publicly  invited  the  slave  to  escape  if  he  could. 
He  would  never  have  thrown  around  the  runaway  the  pro- 
tecting shield  of  his  laws.  He  would  never  have  proclaimed 
in  the  face  of  all  nations,  that  the  moment  when  a  man,  who 
had  fled  from  oppression,  had  reached  the  land  overshadowed 
by  Hebrew  customs  and  laws,  that  moment  he  was  a  free- 
man, and  that  all  the  power  of  the  state  would  be  exerted  to 
secure  him  from  being  restored  to  his  master. 

(8.)  The  eighth  fundamental  principle  in  the  Hebrew  code 
was,  that  at  certain  periods  there  was  to  be  a  total  emancipa- 
tion of  ail  the  slaves  in  the  land.  The  provisions  for  securing 
this,  were  two.  One  was,  that  all  Hebrew  slaves  were  to  be 
released  at  the  close  of  the  sixth  year ;  the  other,  that  all  the 
slaves  in  the  land  were  to  be  set  at  liberty  in  the  year  of 
jubilee. 

First,  In  reirard  to  the  former  of  these  arrangements,  the 
law  was  explicit,  and  there  is  no  difference  of  opinion  as  to  its 
meaning.  The  Hebrew  servant  was,  in  all  circumstances,  to 
be  discharged  at  the  close  of  the  sixth  year  of  his  service,  and 
at  the  jubilee,  whether  he  had  served  the  six  years  or  not, 
unless  by  submitting  to  a  degrading  ceremony  he  showed 
that  he  preferred  to  remain  in  a  state  of  servitude.  Moses 
specifies  two  periods  at  which  the  Hebrew  servant  was  to 


144 


AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 


regain  his  freedom  ;  the  seventh  year  (Ex.  xxi.  and  Deut. 
XV.),  and  the  fiftieth  year,  or  year  of  jubilee.  Lev.  xxv. 
The  meaning  of  these  laws  was  this  :  The  Hebrew  servant 
was  in  no  case  to  serve  more  than  six  years.  If  the  j^ear 
of  jubilee  did  not  occur  during  the  time  of  his  servitude,  he 
was  nevertheless  in  no  instance  to  exceed  six  years  of  ser- 
vice. At  all  events,  also,  he  was  to  be  free  at  the  year  of 
jubilee.  Even  if  he  had  not  then  served  six  years;  if  he 
had  served  only  one,  he  was  to  be  restored  to  liberty,  for  it 
was  a  great  principle  of  the  Hebrew  legislation  that  every 
fifty  years  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  land  should  be  free.* 
The  argument  to  prove  that  the  Hebrew  servant  was  manu- 
mitted (Ex.  xxi.  2;  Deut.  xv.  12;  Jer.  xxxiv.  14)  on  the 
seventh  year  after  he  became  a  servant,  whether  this  were  a 
sabbatical  year  or  not,  may  be  seen  pursued  at  length  in  a 
tract  of  John  Meyer,  de  Temporibus,  et  Festis  Diebus  Hc- 
brasorum,  cap.  xvii.  22 — 35,  found  in  Ugolin's  Thesaur.  Ant. 
Sacra,  torn  i.  p.  697.  On  the  year  of  jubilee,  all  the  He- 
brew servants  were  released,  whether  they  had  served  six 
years  or  not.  The  testimony  of  Maimonides  is  clear  on  this 
point,  t  The  Mosaic  provisions  respecting  the  Hebrew  ser- 
vant are  thus  stated  : — "  If  thou  buy  an  Hebrew  servant,  six 
years  he  shall  serve  :  and  in  the  seventh  year  he  shall  go 
out  free  for  nothing."  Ex.  xxi.  2.  "  And  if  thy  brother,  an 
Hebrew  man,  or  an  Hebrew  woman,  be  sold  unto  thee,  and 
serve  thee  six  years,  then  in  the  seventh  year  thou  shalt  let 
him  go  free  from  thee."  Deut.  xv.  12;  comp.  Lev.  xxxiv.  10 
— 17.  If,  however,  during  the  period  of  his  servitude,  the 
Hebrew  had  married  a  wife  who  belonged  to  his  master,  and 
who  was  held  by  another  tenure,  and  he  chose  to  remain  with 
her,  he  was  not  to  be  thrust  out  with  violence.  He  was  at 
liberty,  by  submitting  to  what  would  be  a  perpetual  mark  of 
his  degradation,  to  remain.     "And  if  the  servant  shall  plainly 

*  Comp.  Michaelis'  Commentary  on  the  Laws  of  Moses,  vol.  ii.  pp. 
176,   177. 
\  See  Ugolin,  as  above,  p.  700. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVERY.  145 

say,  I  loTe  my  motlier,  my  wife,  nnd  my  childrcMi ;  I  will  not 
go  out  free;  then  his  master  shall  bring  him  unto  the  judge  ; 
he  shall  also  bring  him  unto  the  door,  or  unto  the  door-post ; 
and  his  master  shall  bore  his  ear  through  with  an  awl,  and 
he  shall  serve  him  for  ever."  Ex.  xxi.  5,  6.  In  this  case  his 
servitude  became  wholly  voluntary,  and  this  can  furnish  no 
authority  for  involuntary  servitude,  or  for  retaining  a  man  in 
bondage  against  his  will.  Any  man,  doubtless,  has  a  right 
to  become  the  permanent  servant  of  another,  if  he  chooses. 
In  this  case,  however,  as  in  all  instances  where  a  Hebrew 
became  a  servant,  there  was  an  express  provision  that  he 
should  not  be  regarded  in  the  light  of  a  slave  or  bondman. 
*'  And  if  thy  brother  that  dwcUeth  by  thee  be  waxen  poor, 
and  be  sold  unto  thee,  thou  shalt  not  compel  him  to  serve  as 
a  bond-servant ;  but  as  an  hired  servant,  and  as  a  sojourner, 
he  shall  be  with  thee,  and  shall  serve  thee  unto  the  year  of 
jubilee :  and  then  shall  he  depart  from  thee,  both  he  and  his 
children  with  him,  and  shall  return  unto  his  own  family,  and 
unto  the  possession  of  his  fathers  shall  he  return.  For  they 
are  my  servants,  brought  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt: 
they  shall  not  be  sold  as  bondmen.  Thou  shalt  not  rule 
over  him  with  rigour,  but  thou  shalt  fear  thy  God."  Lev. 
XXV.  39 — 43. 

Second,  The  law  was  equally  explicit  that  in  the  year  of 
jubilee,  occurring  once  in  fifty  years,  there  was  to  be  a  uni- 
versal proclamation  of  freedom  throughout  the  land.  This 
po>itive  law  occurs  in  Lev.  xxv.  10.  "And  ye  shall  hallow 
the  fiftieth  year,  and  ■proclaim  liberty  throughout  all  the 
land  UNTO  all  the  inhabitants  thereof  ;  it  shall  be  a 
jubilee  unto  you ;  and  ye  shall  return  every  man  unto  his 
poBseesion,  and  every  man  unto  his  family."  This  law  does 
not  seem  to  have  any  ambiguity,  or  to  be  easily  susceptible 
of  misconstruction.  The  command  is  positive  that  it  should 
be  proclaimed  in  every  part  of  the  land  that  all  the  inhabit- 
ants were  free.  It  seems  to  be  a  plain  matter,  then,  that 
this  proclamation  could  not  be  made,  and  yet  any  part  of  the 

13 


146  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

inhabitants  of  the  land  be  retained  in  servitude.  The  word 
rendered  liberty  here  ^n";  derdr)  is  not  of  frequent  occur- 
rence in  the  Old  Testament,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  about 
its  meaning.  It  signifies,  according  to  Gesenius,  (1.)  a  swift 
flight,  a  wheeling  gyration  ;  (2.)  a  spontaneous  flow,  or  flow- 
ing freel}^  and  abundantly ;  and,  (3.)  a  letting  go  free,  free- 
dom, liberty.  It  is  rendered  in  the  Septuagint  a^ioiv,  remis- 
sion. It  is  a  word  which  is  commonly  apphed  expressly  to 
the  manumission  of  slav^es.  Thus  in  Jer.  xxxiv.  8,  9  :  "  This 
is  the  word  that  came  unto  Jeremiah  from  the  Lord,  after  that 
the  king  had  made  a  covenant  with  all  the  people  which 
were  in  Jerusalem,  to  proclaim  liberty  pl"'7  derdr)  unto 
them ;  that  every  man  should  let  his  man-servant,  and  every 
man  his  maid-servant,  being  an  Hebrew  or  Hebrewess,  go 
free  ;  that  none  should  serve  himself  of  them,  to  wit,  of  a  Jew 
his  brother."  See  also  vs.  15,  16,  of  the  same  chapter.  So 
also  in  Ezek.  xlvi.  17,  the  same  word  is  applied  to  the  year 
in  which  the  slave  by  law  was  restored  to  liberty.  The 
meaning  of  the  phrase  '  unto  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  land,' 
seems  also  to  be  plain.  The  Hebrew  expression  employed, 
P'.?^' — loshebehd,  is  one  which  would  include  all  that  dwelt 
in  the  land.  The  LXX  have  used  a  phrase  that  would  in 
itself  not  improperly  embrace  all  that  sojourned  in  the  land 
from  any  cause,  ndat  toi^  xatoixovaiv  avc^v.  To  one  who 
should  read  this  law,  if  there  were  no  other  to  conflict  with 
it,  or  that  made  it  necessary  to  seek  a  different  interpretation, 
the  plain  meaning  of  the  statute  would  appear  to  be,  that  all 
who  resided  in  the  land  from  whatever  motive,  or  whatever 
were  their  relations  or  employments,  were  from  that  moment 
to  be  regarded  as  freemen.  So  it  would  be  now  understood, 
if  a  proclamation  were  made  in  these  very  words  throughout 
the  United  States.  So  also  if  a  clause  had  been  introduced 
into  the  federal  constitution,  declaring,  that  at  the  termination 
of  fifty  years  from  that  time,  'Liberty  should  be  proclaimed 
throughout  all  the  land  to  all  the  inhabitants  thereof^  there 
could  have  been  no  difl^erence  of  opinion  in  regard  to  its 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVERY.  M7 

meaning.  Tlie  courts  of  the  land  would  have  boon  unani- 
mous in  its  intorprolation.  After  tlie  publication  of  such  a 
law,  it  is  clear  that  slavery  of  any  kind  would  have  been 
unlawful. 

The  following  brief  summary  of  remarks  contains  the  prin- 
ciples on  which  such  an  interpretation  is  given  to  this  word 
as  to  make  it  embrace  all  the  dwellers  in  the  land,  of  all 
classes  and  conditions.  (1.)  The  word  here  rendered  inhabit' 
ants  is  the  one  which,  if  that  idea  had  been  intended  to  be 
conveyed,  would  have  been  employed.  There  is  no  other 
word  of  more  general  character  in  the  Hebrew  language ; 
none  which  would  have  better  conveyed  the  idea;  none 
which  a  Hebrew  would  have  been  so  likely  to  employ. 
(2.)  It  is,  as  remarked  above,  the  natural,  and  obvious  inter- 
pretation ;  that  which  would  occur  to  the  great  mass  of 
readers ;  that  about  which  there  would  be  no  doubt,  if 
no  difficuhy  should  arise  out  of  the  passage  itself.  So  it 
would  be  understood  now  ;  so  it  would  have  been  understood 
in  any  country  or  age.  (3.)  It  is  an  accordance  with  the 
usage  of  the  word  elsewhere.  There  is  almost  no  word  of 
more  frequent  occurrence  in  the  Scriptures,  than  the  Hebrew 
word  (^^\)  here  employed.  It  occurs,  in  various  forms,  more 
than  eleven  hundred  times  in  the  Bible,*  and  is  employed  in 
the  most  general  manner  conceivable.  Any  dweller,  any  in- 
habitant, any  one  who  resides  in  a  place,  any  one  who  so- 
jounis,  any  one  who  remains  only  for  a  short  time,  or  any 
one  who  has  a  permanent  residence,  would  be  embraced  by 
this  word.  It  is  repeatedly  applied  to  all  that  came  out  of 
Egypt ;  to  all  that  abode  in  the  wilderness  ;  to  all  the  inha- 
bitants of  Canaan,  of  Edom,  of  Moab,  of  Tyre,  of  Kedar,  of 
Philistia,  of  the  world ;  and  there  is  no  word  which  would 
more  naturally  embrace  all  that  abode  in  a  country,  from  any 
cause  whatever.  (4.)  There  is  nothing,  as  we  shall  see  on  fur- 
ther examination,  which  necessarily  Hmits  its  meaning  here. 

•  Sec  the  Hebrew  Concordance. 


148  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

For  such  reasons  as  these,  it  seems  clear  to  me,  that  the  word 
was  intended  to  embrace  all  that  dwelt  in  the  land,  whatever 
were  their  relations  or  employments.  At  certain  periods  of 
the  Jewish  history  all  were  to  be  free. 

The  correct  interpretation  of  this  passage  (Lev.  xxv.  10)  is 
of  so  great  importance  in  understanding  the  true  nature  of  the 
Hebrew  institutions,  that  it  may  be  proper  here  to  submit 
some  of  the  views  of  distinguished  exposiWDrs.  Vatablus  ex- 
plains it,  "  And  thou  shalt  proclaim  that  all  the  inhabitants 
of  the  land  are  free,  who  were  before  held  as  slaves."  This 
interpretation  is  adopted  by  Rosenmiiller.  Rabbi  Solomon 
says,  *'  Thou  shalt  proclaim  liberty  to  the  servants,  whether 
the  ear  had  been  perforated  with  an  awl  or  not,  or  whether 
the  six  years  had  not  been  completed  from  the  time  when 
they  were  purchased."  The  general  opinion  of  Jewish  wri- 
ters has  been,  that  at  the  year  of  jubilee  all  Hebrew  servants 
at  least,  though  they  had  been  unwilling  to  be  released  at 
the  close  of  the  six  years'  service,  (Ex.  xxi.,)  sliould  then  be 
free.*  "The  year  of  jubilee  made  all  servants  free  without 
exception."  This  is  the  opinion  of  the  most  distinguished 
Jewish  Rabbins,  t  Thus  Abenezra  says,  in  explaining  the 
law  in  Lev.  xxv.  41,  "  And  he  shall  go  out  from  thee,  that 
is,  he  who  sold  himself  to  thee  of  his  own  accord,  as  well  as 
he  who  was  convicted  of  theft,  and  who  was  sold  to  thee  on 
account  of  theft."  Maimonides  says,  that  all  those  whose 
ears  had  been  bored,  (Ex.  xxi.,)  and  who  had  thus  become 
voluntary  servants  beyond  the  period  of  six  years,  were  then 
set  at  liberty.  "  The  servant  who  was  sold,  and  who  had 
serv^ed  six  years,  and  who  was  then  unwilling  to  leave  his 
master,  his  ear  was  bored,  and  he  was  to  serve  ujitil  the  year 
of  jubileeJ"  X  Servants  who  had  been  sick  through  their 
whole  time  of  service,  or  who  were  then   confined  to  their 

*  See  Joh.  Casp.  Miegius,  Constitutiones  Servi  Hebraei,  §  3,  Ixxxvi. 
-j-  See  the  instances   referred  to    in  Ugolin's  Thes.  Ant.  Sacra,  torn. 
xxvi.  p.  793.  4  Avod.  c.  iii.  §  6. 


SCRIPTUIL\L    VIEWS    OF    SLAVERY.  149 

couch,  were  also  made  free  at  the  year  of  jubilee.*  "The 
servant  who  is  sick  as  the  year  of  jubilee  comes  in,  becomes 
free."  They  who  had  endeavoured  before  to  escape,  but  who 
had  been  prevented,  were  set  free  at  the  year  of  jubilee. 
"  When  a  servant  who  sold  himself,  or  who  was  sold  by  the 
court,  made  an  attempt  to  escape,  he  was  held  to  make  up  for 
these  years,  but  he  was  set  at  liberty  at  the  year  of  jubilee."! 
The  wives  and  children  of  slaves  were  restored  to  liberty  on 
the  year  of  jubilee.  %  Josephus  expressly  states,  that  all  the 
Hebrew  servants  whose  '  ears  had  been  bored,'  and  who  had 
served  their  masters  voluntarily  more  than  six  years,  were  set 
at  hberty  in  the  year  of  jubilee.  §  It  would  also  appear  from 
Josephus,!!  that  on  the  year  of  jubilee,  all  slaves  were  set  at 
liberty.  "  The  fiftieth  year  is  called  by  the  Hebrews  the  jubi- 
lee, wherein  debtors  are  freed  from  their  debts,  and  slaves  are 
set  at  liberty;''  and  though  in  this  connection  he  mentions 
only  Hebrew  slaves,  yet  as  he  elsewhere  mentions  no  other,  it 
would  seem  that  he  regarded  the  law  as  general,  that  all  who 
were  then  slaves  should  be  on  that  year  restored  to  freedom. 

The  law  under  consideration,  (Lev.  xxv.  10)  is  so  positive 
and  explicit  in  its  terms,  that  there  could  have  been  no  differ- 
ence of  opinion  in  regard  to  it,  if  there  were  not  a  permission 
given,  which  seems  to  conflict  with  it,  and  which  has  led 
many  respectable  expositors  to  maintain  that  the  law  of  eman- 
cipation at  the  jubilee  related  only  to  the  Hebrews  who  w^ere 
held  as  slaves,  and  that  those  who  were  foreigners  were  re- 
tained for  life,  notwithstanding  this  proclamation,  and  that  in 
fact,  therefore,  slavery  among  the  Hebrews  was  a  perpetual 
institution.  It  is  of  essential  importance,  therefore,  to  inquire 
whether  the  statute  referred  to  demands  this  interpretation. 
It  is  found  in  Lev.  xxv.  44 — 17 :     "  Both  thy  bondtnen  and  ( 

•  Maimonidefi,  Avod.  c  ii.  §  5 ;  c  iii.  §  15.    f  Maimonides,  c.  iii.  §  15. 
i  See  the  aulhoritieH  for  this  quoted  in  Ugolin,  as  above. 
§  Ant.  b.  iv.  ch.  vUi,  §  28.  U  A  at.  b.  ii.  ch.  xii.  §  3. 

13* 


150  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

thy  bondmaids,  which  thou  shalt  have,  shall  be  of  the 
heathen  that  are  round  about  you ;  of  them  shall  ye  buy 
bondmen  and  bondmaids.  Moreover,  of  the  children  of  the 
strangers  that  do  sojourn  among  you,  of  them  shall  ye  buy, 
and  of  their  families  that  are  with  you,  which  they  begat  in 
your  land  ;  they  shall  be  your  possession.  And  ye  shall  take 
them  as  an  inheritance  for  your  children  after  you,  to  inherit 
them  for  a  possession  ;  they  shall  be  your  bondmen  for  ever: 
but  over  your  brethren,  the  children  of  Israel,  ye  shall  not 
rule  one  over  another  with  rigour."  There  can  be  no  differ- 
ence of  opinion  on  the  question  whether  this  authorized  the 
Hebrews  to  purchase  those  of  the  surrounding  nations  for 
slaves.  The  only  question  is,  whether  the  slavery  into 
which  they  were  brought  by  this  purchase  was  perpetual 
and  hereditary,  or  whether  those  who  were  thus  bought  of 
the  heathen  came  under  the  general  operation  of  the  law  that 
•  liberty  was  to  be  proclaimed  to  all  the  inhabitants  of  the 
land'  on  the  year  of  jubilee.  The  objection  to  this  interpre- 
tation is  found  in  the  expression,  "  And  ye  shall  take  them 
as  an  inheritance  for  your  children  after  you,  to  inherit  them 
for  a  possession;  they  shall  be  your  bondmen  for  ever." 
The  question  is,  how,  in  connection  with  the  proclamation  of 
the  year  of  jubilee,  this  is  to  be  interpreted. 

It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  many  respectable  names  may  be 
adduced  to  prove  that  this  law  contemplates  that  slavery 
should  be  a  perpetual  institution  among  the  Hebrews,  and 
that,  while  all  who  were  Hebrews  by  birth  were  to  be  manu- 
mitted in  the  year  of  jubilee,  this  arrangement  did  not  extend 
to  foreign  slaves.  This  opinion  is  expressed  decidedly  by 
Judge  Stroud,*  though  he  endeavours  to  show  that  "  the  term 
perpetuaU  in  its  proper  and  absolute  sense,  was  not  applica- 
ble to  the  slavery  of  the  Israelites,  even  of  the  heathen  na- 
tions, and  that  the  heathen  slaves  might  become  proselytes, 
and  thus  soon  obtain  their  freedom.     It  is  also  the  opinion  of 

*  Laws  of  Slavery,  p.  63. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  151 

Thomas  Goodwin,*  and  is  the  opinion  of  Mi(?gius,tquotrd  above. 
Probably  this  would  be  found  also  to  be  the  opinion  of  all  in 
our  own  country  ^vho  endeavour  to  defend  slavery  from  the 
Bible.  Thus  the  conductors  of  the  Princeton  Repertory 
become  absolutely  confident  on  this  point,  and  consider  it  as 
80  clear  that  it  excludes  even  the  possibility  of  reasoning  on 
the  subject.     They  say, 

**  We  do  not  know  how  this  passage  can  be  rendered  plainer 
than  it  is,  nor  can  we  hope^hat  any  man,  who  is  in  such  a 
stale  of  mind  as  to  prevent  his  seeing  and  admitting  that  it 
authorized  the  Hebrews  to  hold  slaves,  could  be  convinced 
even  if  one  rose  from  the  dead.  It  is  here  taught,  1.  That  if 
a  Hebrew  through  poverty  sold  himself,  he  should  not  be  re- 
duced to  the  abject  stale  of  a  slave.  2.  That  he  should  be 
treated  as  a  hired  servant.  3.  And  be  allowed  to  go  free  at 
the  year  of  jubilee.  This  is  the  precise  condition  which 
abohtionists  assign  to  the  heathen  servants  among  the  He- 
brews, whereas  it  is  here  declared  to  be  pecuhar  to  servants 
who  were  children  of  Israel ;  who  could  not  be  sold  as  bond- 
men, vendilione  mancipii,  as  the  elder  Michaelis  translates  it. 
Of  the  other  class  it  is  taught,  1.  That  they  might  be  bought 
for  bondmen.  2.  That  they  might  be  held  as  a  possession  or 
property.  3.  They  might  be  bequeathed  by  their  masters  to 
the  children  as  a  possession  ;  hereditario  jure  possidebitis,  as 
Michaehs  renders  the  phrase ;  or  as  De  Wette  translates  it  to 
the  letter:  Ihr  moget  sie  vererben  auf  eure  Sohne  nach  euch 
als  Eigenthum.  Vou  may  bequeath  them  to  your  children 
afltr  you  fur  a  possession.  4.  This  bondage  was  perpetual. 
They  shall  be  your  bondmen  for  ever.  One  of  the  points  of 
distinction  between  the  two  classes  was,  that  the  former  could 
not  be  sold  in  perpetuity,  the  latter  might.  As  the  land  of  a 
Hebrew  could  not  be  alienated,  so  his  person  could  not  be  re- 

•  Moses  and  Aaron,  c.  x.,  note  3,  in  Ugolin's  Thos.  Ant  Sacrar.  torn.  iii. 
p.  296. 

j  See  his  work,  in  UgoUn.  Tbesaur.  AiiU  Sac  xxvi.  p.  738. 


152  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

duccd  to  perpetual  bondage.  At  the  year  of  jubilee  he  was 
to  go  free,  and  his  inheritance  reverted  to  him.  In  contrast 
with  this,  Moses  allows  the  heathen  to  be  reduced  to  perpetual 
bondage.  Hebrews  shall  not  be  sold  with  the  sale  of  a  slave, 
venditione  mancipih  v.  42 ;  the  heathen  may  be  thus  sold,  is 
the  very  point  of  contrast,  v.  46.  If  the  former  passage  for- 
bade reducing  Israelites  to  the  condition  of  slaves,  the  latter 
allowed  the  heathen  to  be  so  reduced.  Again,  both  the  He- 
brew words  and  the  construction  in  v,  39,  are  the  same  as  v. 
46.  An  Israelite  '  thou  shalt  not  compel  to  serve  as  a  bond- 
servant;' the  heathen  *  shall  be  your  bondmen.'  What  is 
forbidden  in  the  one  case,  was  allowed  in  the  other." 

So  plain  is  this  passage  in  their  eyes,  that  it  is  probable  that 
a  man  who  should  even  doubt  whether  all  this  is  so  would  be 
regarded  by  them  as  of  the  same  intellectual  capacity  and 
attainments  as  he,  to  use  their  own  expression,  who  should 
gravely  maintain  that  when  it  is  said  that  "John  the  Baptist 
came  neither  eating  nor  drinking,  it  means  that  he  drank  no 
water,  but  only  milk ;"  or  as  he  who  should  assert  that  all  the 
slaves  were  "  ten  feet  high."     Thus  they  say  : — 

"The  attempts  made  to  evade  this  plain  teaching  of  the 
Scriptures  are  precisely  similar  to  those  which  are  made  to 
prove  that  the  Bible  condemns  as  sinful  all  use  of  wine  as  a 
beverage,  and  that  it  pronounces  even  defensive  war  to  be 
sinful.  It  is  impossible  to  answer  mere  assertions.  And  the 
more  extravagant  the  assertion,  the  more  impossible  the  an- 
swer. How  can  a  man  be  refuted  who  should  say,  as  we 
know  an  ultra  advocate  of  temperance  did  say,  that  the  passage 
which  speaks  of  John  the  Baptist  coming  neither  eating  nor 
drinking,  means  that  he  drank  no  water,  but  only  milk  ;  where- 
as Christ  came  drinking  water;  though  he  was  called  a  glut- 
tonous man  and  a  wine-bibber.  So  when  abolitionists  say  in 
reference  to  all  the  passages  above  referred  to,  that  the  bond- 
men of  the  Hebrews,  even  from  among  the  heathen,  were 
voluntary  servants,  who  received  themselves  the  purchase 
money  paid  for  them,  that  they  were  in  fact  hired  servants, 


SCRirTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  153 

receiving  wages,  hiring  themselves  for  a  term  of  years  instead 
of  for  a  sinple  year,  or  for  a  day,  or  week,  or  month,  who 
could  neither  be  sold  nor  bequeathed  ;  we  know  not  how  they 
are  to  be  answered,  any  more  than  if  they  were  to  assert,  they 
were  all  ten  feet  hic^h." 

To  the  interpretation,  however,  which  supposes  that  this 
passage  means  that  slavery  was  to  be  perpetual,  and  that  so 
far  as  it  pertained  to  foreign  slaves,  their  condition  was  not  to 
be  affected  by  the  proclamation  on  the  year  of  jubilee,  there 
stand  opposed  the  following  objections — objections  of  so  much 
force  as  to  seem  to  make  it  necessary  to  seek  some  other  inter- 
pretation. (1.)  The  positive  nature  of  the  command  respect- 
ing the  year  of  jubilee,  "  And  ye  shall  hallow  the  fiftieth 
year,  and  proclaim  liberty  throughout  all  the  land  to  all  the 
inhabitants  thereof."  This  law  is  explicit ;  the  terms,  as  we 
have  seen,  are  such  as  refer  to  freedom  from  servitude,  and 
the  arrangement  is  one  which  accords  with  the  general  spirit 
of  the  Hebrew  institutions.  (2.)  The  hbcrty  of  the  Ilebreiv 
slave  was  secured,  by  other  enactments,  at  the  termination  of 
his  six  years  of  servitude,  unless  he  chose  to  remain  as  a 
senant  for  a  longer  period,  and  submitted  to  a  degrading  cere- 
mony, as  a  proof  that  he  was  willing  to  continue  in  that  con- 
dition. Ex.  xxi.  The  year  of  jubilee,  therefore,  could  secure 
no  real  benefit  to  the  Hebrew  servants,  unless  it  was  to  the 
comparatively  small  number  who  should  have  shown  themselves 
willing  to  remain  in  this  humiliating  condition.  The  restora- 
tion to  freedom  of  that  comparative  small  number  would  have 
been  an  event  by  no  means  commensurate  with  the  import- 
ance attached  to  the  year  of  jubilee,  as  a  year  of  universal 
emancipation.  It  was  evidently  the  intention  of  this  humane 
and  remarkable  law,  that  on  the  return  of  every  fifty  years 
things  should  go  back  where  they  were  half  a  century  before  ; 
that  whatever  wrongs  had  accumulated  in  society  during  that 
period  should  be  at  once  rectified  ;  that  if  there  were  any 
cases  of  oppression  and  cruelty  which  the  usual  operation  of 
the  kw  failed  to  reach,  they  should  now  at  once  be  arrested 


154  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

and  corrected ;  and  that  if  any  cases  of  poverty  had  arisen 
by  a  reverse  of  circumstances,  instead  of  becoming  fixed,  and 
leading  to  the  permanent  debasement  of  the  family,  the  evil 
might  be  checked  then,  and  the  family  have  an  opportunity 
of  beginning  hfe  again.  The  idea  of  the  great  Hebrew  legis- 
lator seems  to  have  been,  that  in  order  to  the  perfection  of  a 
commonwealth,  there  should  be  no  permanent  causes  of  de- 
gradation ;  that  no  individuals  or  classes  in  society  should  be 
placed  in  such  circumstances  of  permanent  disadvantage  that 
they  could  not  rise ;  and  that  in  order  to  secure  the  highest 
state  of  society  it  was  proper  that  all  should  have  the  oppor- 
tunity periodically  of  starting  on  hfe  again  under  equal  ad- 
vantages. There  was  to  be  no  institution,  no  law,  no  custom, 
no  relation,  no  habit  among  the  people,  that  was  to  become 
stereotyped,  and  that  would  send  a  malign  influence  onward 
inevitably  to  coming  generations.  It  was  felt  that  evils  might 
accumulate  which  no  ordinary  operation  of  law  would  reach ; 
that  there  might  be  cases  of  oppression  and  wrong  which  the 
usual  course  of  jurisprudence  could  not  affect;  and  that  in- 
stead of  allowing  them  to  accumulate,  there  should  be  a  time 
when,  by  a  general  enactment,  all  these  evils  should  cease. 
It  was  Hke  clearing  out  the  channel  of  a  river  which  is  in 
danger  of  being  obstructed  with  drift-wood,  that  it  may  run 
clear  again ;  or  like  a  law  respecting  a  "  general  jail  delivery," 
or  the  action  of  the  court  of  oyer  and  terminer,  where  all  un- 
tried cases  m,ust  be  tried — lest  otherwise  some  who  are  accused 
of  crime  should  be  overlooked  in  the  ordinary  process  of  juris- 
prudence, and  thus  permanent  injustice  be  done,  and  evils 
accumulate  in  a  community.  It  is  essential  to  society  that 
there  should  be  some  such  enactments.  We  apply  them  to 
judicial  proceedings  by  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  and  by 
other  enactments.  Moses  meant  that  by  one  general  arrange- 
ment all  these  evils  should  be  reached  at  once.  He  knew 
nothing,  indeed,  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  or  of  a  court 
of  oyer  and  terminer,  but  perhaps  it  would  be  found  even  now 
that  his  one  appointment  of  the  year  of  jubilee  would  accom- 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVERY.  155 

plish  as  much  for  the  c:o(xl  of  a  community  as  all  the  devices 
in  jurisprudence  in  modern  times.  But  it  is  clear  that  this 
arrangement  could  not  be  carried  into  elfect  unless  there  was 
a  provision  for  universal  emancipation.  If  the  law  had  not 
extended  to  foreign  slaves,  there  would  have  been  a  perma- 
nent evil,  diametrically  opposed  to  the  whole  tenor  of  the 
Mosaic  institutions,  stretching  on  from  age  to  age.  (3.)  The 
language  which  is  employed  in  Lev.  xxv.  4(5,  "they  shall  be 
your  bondmen  for  ever,"  does  not  of  necessity  imj^ly  that  this 
refers  to  the  perpetual  bondage  of  the  individual  slave.  It 
could  not,  at  all  events,  be  literally  true,  nor  is  it  necessarily 
meant  even  that  the  individual  was  to  be  a  slave  till  his  death. 
The  same  language  precisely  is  used  of  the  Hebrew  slave, 
who  chose  to  remain  with  his  master  rather  than  to  be  made 
free  at  the  end  of  six  years,  and  who  had  his  ear  bored  as  a 
token  of  his  voluntary  servitude.  Ex.  xxi.  G  :  "  His  master 
shall  bore  his  ear  through  with  an  awl ;  and  he  shall  serve 
him  for  crcr.'*  Yet  it  is  admitted,  on  all  hands,  that  this 
^*for  ere?*"  extended,  in  the  case  of  the  Hebrew  servant,  only 
lo  the  year  of  jubilee.  How  is  it  then  inferred  that  the  same 
phrase  should  mean  that  the  foreign  individual  should  serve 
for  life,  or  should  be  perpetually  a  slave?  (4.)  All  that  is 
fairly  implied  in  the  law  of  Moses  (Lev.  xxv.  41 — 40),  "  thy 
bondmen,  and  thy  bondmaids  which  thou  shalt  have,  shall  be 
of  the  heathen  that  are  round  about  you,  and  ye  shall  take 
them  for  an  inheritance  for  your  children  after  you,  they  shall 
be  your  bondmen  for  ever"  is,  that  the  permanent  provision 
for  servants  was  not  that  they  were  to  enslave  or  employ  their 
brethren,  the  Hebrews,  but  that  they  were  to  employ  foreigners. 
Those  who  were  already  slaves  in  other  nations — for  all  kid- 
napping, or  all  making  of  slaves  by  the  Hebrews  themselves 
was  forbidden — might  be  introduced  into  the  Jewish  common- 
wealth, under  the  far  superior  advantages  which  they  would 
enjoy  there,  and  the  greatly  modified  conditions  of  servitude 
there,  and  it  would  be  a  permanent  arranp^einent  that  they 
might  be  purchased  and  introduced  among  the  Hebrews,  where 


156  AN   INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

they  would  enjoy  the  privileges  of  the  true  religion,  and  where 
they  would  be  secure  of  their  freedom  at  the  return  of  the 
jubilee.  The  native  Hebrew  was  never  to  be  regarded 
properly  as  a  slave.  He  was  to  be  considered,  even  when 
sold  for  debt,  poverty,  or  theft,  as  "an  hired  servant,  and  a 
sojourner,"  Lev.  xxv.  40;  he  was  not  "to  be  made  to 
serve  with  rigour,"  (Lev.  xxv.  43,  46,)  and  he  was  not,  it 
would  seem,  to  descend  "  as  an  inheritance,"  but  the  foreigner 
who  was  purchased  might  be  regarded  as  the  "  money"  of 
him  who  had  bought  him,  and  might  be  inherited  as  other 
property,  until  he  was  released  by  the  operation  of  the  gene- 
ral law  when  all  became  free.  The  law  was  a  humane  one, 
for  the  condition  of  servitude  among  the  Hebrews,  according 
to  the  Mosaic  statutes,  was  in  all  respects  more  eligible  than 
in  the  surrounding  nations,  and  for  the  Hebrew  to  purchase 
a  slave  was  in  fact  to  secure  him  his  freedom  if  he  survived 
to  the  year  of  'jubilee. 

If,  however,  it  should  be  conceded  that  this  passage  means 
that  the  heathen  might  be  subjected  to  perpetual  bondage,  and 
that  the  intention  was  not  that  they  should  be  released  in  the 
year  of  jubilee,  still  it  will  not  follow  that  this  is  a  justification 
of  perpetual  slavery  as  it  exists  in  the  United  States.  For 
(L)  Even  on  that  supposition  the  concession  was  one  made 
to  them,  not  to  any  other  people.  (2.)  There  were  particular 
reasons  operating  for  subjecting  the  nations  around  Palestine 
to  servitude,  which  do  not  exist  now — they  were  doomed  to 
servitude  for  sins^  not  for  their  complexion.  (3.)  No  one  can 
maintain  that  it  would  be  proper  to  transfer  all  the  Hebrew 
institutions  to  our  own  country,  and  yet  the  fact  that  any  insti- 
tution was  found  in  the  Mosaic  code,  would  be  just  as  strong 
in  that  case  as  in  this :  and,  (4.)  Even  if  we  admit  that  it  was 
right  then,  it  would  not  follow  that  it  would  be  right  now. 
There  is  more  hght  now  than  there  was  then.  There  has 
been  an  advance  in  the  knowledge  of  moral  truths  and  rela- 
tions, and  it  would  not  be  a  safe  method  of  reasoning  to  infer 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  157 

tlmt  what  was  tolerated  in  the  period  of  the  world  when 
Moses  lived,  would  meet  with  the  divine  approbation  now. 

The  importance  of  this  part  of  the  subject  has  led  me  to  ^o 
at  considerable  length  into  the  nature  of  Hebrew  servitude. 
I  liave  done  this  the  rather  because  the  Mosaic  institutions 
are  constantly  appealed  to  in  defence  of  slavery  in  this 
country,  and  it  seems  to  be  inferred  at  once  that  the  mere  fact 
that  Moses  tolerated  a  system  of  servitude,  may  be  reg^arded 
as  a  full  vindication  of  that  very  different  system  which  exists 
in  this  nation.  In  view  of  the  examination  which  we  have 
gone  over,  it  is  natural  to  ask,  what  would  be  the  operation  of 
the  Mosaic  laws  on  slavery  ?  What  would  be  the  effect  of 
these  laws  in  perpetuating  the  system  in  Palestine  ?  What 
would  be  their  operation  if  they  were  applied  to  the  system 
as  it  exists  in  this  land  ?  The  following  would  be  the  inevi- 
table results  of  such  a  system,  and  were  doubtless  such  as 
were  foreseen  and  intended  by  the  sagacious  Hebrew 
statesman. 

(1.)  There  could  be  no  permanent  arrangements  for  the 
system.  At  certain  periods,  not  remote  from  each  other,  all 
the  existing  forms  of  servitude  would  come  to  an  end,  and  the 
land  would  be  a  land  of  liberty. 

(2.)  The  effect  of  such  a  periodical  emancipation  would  be 
to  introduce  a  considerable  number  of  freemen  to  the  enjoy- 
ment of  all  the  civil  and  religious  privileges  of  the  Hebrew 
commonwealth.  The  number  of  freemen  would  be  aug- 
mented, and  the  real  wealth  of  the  state  would  be  increased 
by  all  the  difference  in  value  which  there  is  between  a  free- 
man and  a  slave.  And  this  was  much.  Long  ago  it  was 
said,  by  Homer, 

"Jove  fixed  it  certain  that  whatever  day 
Makes  man  a  slave,  takes  lialf  his  wortli  away." 

A  slave,  or  a  subject  of  oppression  of  any  kind,  is  never 
worth  half  as  much  as  a  freeman.  A  man  under  the  Turkish 
government,  or  in  Russia  or  Persia,  is  not  worth  half  as  much 

11 


158  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

as  a  mere  means  of  increasing  national  wealth,  as  in  a  free 
country.  A  slave  has  nothing  like  half  the  value  of  a  free- 
man as  a  means  of  increasing  the  property  of  a  nation,  or 
considered  as  a  part  of  national  wealth.  In  our  country  he  is 
*  one-third  of  a  freeman'  in  representation,  but  not  in  actual 
worth.  The  way  to  make  a  man  valuable  is  plain.  It  is  to 
impress  him  with  the  conviction  that  he  is  a  freeman ;  to 
allow  him  to  feel  that  his  limbs,  his  time,  his  ingenuity,  his 
sinews,  are  his  own ;  to  permit  him  to  pursue  his  own  plans 
in  his  own  way,  subject  only  to  those  mild  restraints  which 
a  regard  to  the  welfare  of  others  demands ;  to  teach  him  that 
he  is  responsible  to  his  Maker  alone  for  the  manner  in  which 
he  spends  his  time  and  employs  his  talents ;  to  assure  him, 
by  all  the  safeguards  which  the  law  can  throw  around  him, 
that  the  avails  of  his  labour  shall  be  his  own ;  to  give  him  a 
pledge  that  the  whole  community  will  come  forth,  if  necessary, 
to  defend  him  if  he  has  been  injured  or  wronged,  and  that 
every  court  of  justice  will  vindicate  his  rights  to  a  farthing. 
It  is  to  allow  him  to  own  a  piece  of  land  on  which  he  can 
tread  as  a  freeman,  and  say,  '  It  is  mine.  I  may  keep  it  or 
sell  it ;  I  may  plow  it  and  sow  it  as  I  please.  I  may  sit  down 
here  under  the  vine  and  the  fig-tree  planted  by  my  own 
hands.  Here,  if  I  choose,  I  may  build  me  a  house  where  to 
live  ;  and  here  I  may  dig  a  grave  for  myself  and  my  children, 
which  no  mortal  can  have  a  right  to  disturb ;  and  here  I  may 
lay  me  down  when  I  die,  and  sleep  in  the  hope  of  a  glorious 
immortality.'  An  arrangement,  therefore,  which  should  have 
the  effect  to  elevate  periodically  all  to  the  rank  of  freemen, 
who  from  any  cause  had  been  depressed  to  the  condition  of 
bondage,  would  be  most  auspicious  on  a  commonwealth,  and 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Moses  contemplated  this  in  his 
arrangements  for  the  regulation  of  affairs  in  the  Hebrew 
community. 

(3.)  The  operation  of  these  laws  would  soon  abolish  slavery 
altogether,  or  at  least  would  so  diminish  the  evils  of  the 
system,  as  to  make  it  practically  little  oppressive.     After  the 


SCUirTrRAL    VinWS    OK    SLAVLRY.  159 

universal  emancipation  at  the  jubilee,  it  would  not  be  easy  to 
begin  the  system  asrain.  It  is  not  probable  that  they  who 
were  released  would  sell  themselves  again  into  servitude;  and 
as  all  who  were  slaves  were  to  be  the  result  of  purchase,  and 
not  of  conquest  or  kidnappincf,  it  is  clear  that  the  places  of 
those  who  had  been  emancipated  could  not  be  soon  supplied. 
if  in  this  country  there  were  an  article  of  the  constitution  that 
there  should  be  a  jubilee  once  in  fifty  years,  in  wliich  all 
who  were  held  in  slavery  should  be  restored  to  freedom,  even 
if  it  were  pennitted  to  procure  slaves  again  by  purchasing 
them  from  foreigners,  it  is  clear  that  slavery  would  soon 
cease.  The  slave  would  at  once  lose  a  considerable  part 
of  his  value,  for  he  and  his  children  would  soon  be  free. 
It  would  be  impossible  at  once  to  supply  the  places  of  those 
who  were  emancipated  at  the  jubilee,  for  the  most  active 
traffic,  and  the  most  numerous  importations  practicable, 
would  not  meet  the  demand.  The  plantations,  in  the  mean 
time,  must  lie  waste,  and  all  the  operations  usually  carried 
on  by  slave  labour  would  be  suspended,  unless  there  could 
be  found  some  substitute  for  that  labour.  But  here  would  be 
all  those  who  had  been  set  at  hbert}-,  now  dignified  as  free- 
men ;  stimulated  to  make  an  effort  for  themselves  and  th^ir 
famihes,  because  they  were  free  ;  acquainted  with  the  busi- 
ness to  be  done  on  a  plantation ;  many  of  them  attached  to 
their  old  masters,  and  ready  to  engage  in  their  service  for  a 
reasonable  compensation.  The  consequence  would  be,  that 
in  by  far  the  greater  number  of  instances,  there  would  be  no 
desire  to  purchase  slaves  again.  Those  who  had  been  slaves, 
and  who  were  emancipated  by  law,  would  be  at  once  engaged, 
not  as  'bondmen,'  but  as  'hired  labourers,'  and  the  same 
work  which  they  performed  before  under  the  lash,  they  would 
now  perform,  in  a  better  manner,  under  the  higher  incentives 
applicable  to  freemen.  It  may  be  safely  said  that  slavery,  as 
a  system,  would  not  survive  the  operation  of  two  such  jubilees 
in  this  land  ;  and  the  conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  Moses  was 
not  a  friend  of  the  system,  and  did  not  design  its  perpetuity. 


160  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

I  have  thus  examined,  at  length,  the  nature  and  the  prac- 
tical operation  of  the  Mosaic  institutions  in  regard  to  servi- 
tude. But  one  point  remains,  to  settle  the  inquiry  whether 
we  can  derive  an  argument  from  the  Mosaic  institutions  in 
defence  of  slavery  as  it  exists  in  our  land,  or  to  determine 
whether  it  is  proper  to  infer,  as  is  often  done,  that  because 
the  Hebrew  institutions  tolerated  slavery,  that,  therefore,  the 
system  is  right  as  it  exists  in  the  United  States.  This  -will 
make  it  necessary  to  compare  the  Mosaic  arrangements 
already  described,  with  those  existing  in  this  country. 

§  3.   Comparison  of  the  Mosaic  institutions  in  relation  to 
Slavery  with  those  existing  in  the  United  States. 

The  Mosaic  institutions  are,  as  has  been  before  remarked, 
often  appealed  to  in  support  of  slavery  as  it  exists  at  the 
present  time.  It  is  inferred,  that  because  Moses  permitted 
it,  under  the  sanction  of  God,  that  therefore  it  is  lawful  now. 
This  argument  supposes  that  slavery,  as  Moses  tolerated  it, 
had  substantially  the  same  features  which  it  has  now,  and 
that  consequently  it  is  right  to  argue  from  one  to  the  other. 
It  is  important,  therefore,  to  bring  into  comparison  the  fea- 
tures of  slavery  as  it  exists  now,  Wi\\i  those  which, were 
tolerated  under  the  Mosaic  laws ;  for  nothing  can  be  clearer 
than  that  if  an  argument  can  be  constructed  at  all  in  favour 
of  slavery  from  the  fact  that  it  was  tolerated  by  Moses,  that 
argument  can  be  adduced  only  in  favour  of  those  features 
of  servitude  which  he  himself  imbodied  in  his  civil  code. 

Before  proceeding,  however,  to  notice  the  things  in  which 
slavery  in  this  country  differs  essentially  from  that  tolerated 
under  the  Mosaic  laws,  there  is  one  remark  which  it  is 
important  to  make,  in  order  to  obtain  a  clear  view  of  the 
argument.  It  is,  that  it  is  no  certain  evidence  that  a  thing 
is  approved,  or  is  regarded  as  best,  because  it  is  tolerated. 
The  circumstances  may  be  such  that  the  evil  could  not  at 
once  be  prevented  without  tearing  up  the  very  foundations 


SCRIPTURAL    Vn.WS    UK    Sl.AVK.IlV.  KU 

of  society,  and,  therefore,  it  may  be  necessary  to  connive  at 
it.  The  ultimate  good  may  on  the  whole  be  more  promoted, 
if  Jl  is  permitted,  with  arrangements  to  modify  it,  and  nlii- 
mately  to  remove  it,  than  it  would  be  if  there  were  a  violent 
effort  to  remove  it  at  once.  We  have  certain  evidence  that 
there  were  some  things  allowed  by  Moses,  and  for  which  he 
legislated^  which  were  not  regarded  as  arrangements  most 
conducive  to  the  happiness  of  society,  and  which  it  was  never 
intended  should  always  exist.  Among  these  things  we  may 
mention  (a)  poli/s^amy.  Nothing  can  be  clearer  from  the  New 
Testament  than  that  polygamy  was  not  originally  designed 
when  man  was  made,  (Matt.  xix.  4.)  and  that  it  was  not  re- 
garded as  the  best  institution  for  society,  or  to  be  perpetuated 
for  the  good  of  mankind,  (1  Tim.  iii.  2  ;  1  Cor.  vii.  2 ;)  and  yet 
this  was  practised  by  nearly  all  the  patriarchs,  and  was  tole- 
rated by  the  Mosaic  laws.  I  am  aware  that  it  is  denied  by 
the  advocates  of  slavery,*  and  by  some  most  decided  aboli- 
tionists t— extremes  meeting  here — that  Moses  tolerated  poly- 
gamy, or  that  he  ever  legislated  for  it,  and  that  even  Dr. 
Dwight  denies  it.  J  The  argvment  on  which  Dr.  Dwight 
rests,  and  the  only  one,  is  the  7nara;inal  reading  in  the 
English  version  of  Lev.  xviii.  18,  "Thou  shall  not  take  one 
wife  to  another."  The  reading  in  the  text  is,  "Neither  shalt 
thou  take  a  wife  to  her  sister,  to  vex  her,  besides  the  other, 
in  her  lifetime.'*  But,  that  the  reading  in  the  text  is  the 
correct  one,  is  apparent,  (1.)  because  the  main  discussion  in 
the  chapter  is  not  about  polygamy,  but  about  marrying  near 
relations.  Having  stated  the  general  principles  on  that  sub- 
ject, nothing  was  more  natural  than  for  the  lawgiver  to  add, 
that  though,  in  itself,  it  was  not  unlawful  to  marry  the  sister 
of  a  wife,  and  he  did  not  mean  to  prohibit  that — a  question 

•  Hee  the  Southern  Literary  Messenger,  for  September,  1845,  p.  521. 
■\  Sec  the  Letters  of  the  Rev.  A.  A.  Thclps,  to  Professor  Stowe. 
i  Theology,  vol.  iii.  pp.  419,  420. 

IV 


162  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

which  could  not  but  occur — yet  that  it  was  not  proper  to  do 
it  '  in  her  lifetime.'  There  were  obvious  evils  and  impro- 
prieties accompanying  such  a  step,  which  would  render  it 
undesirable  that  it  should  be  done.  (2.)  This  is  the  fair 
construction  of  the  Hebrew — ^»^^.  7X  n^Xl — *  a  wife  to  her 
sister,^  and  it  will  not  properly  bear  any  other.  So  the  Vul- 
gate exphcitly — Sororem  uxoris  tuse  in  pellicatum  ilhus  non 
accipies — adhuc  ilia  vivente.  So  the  LXX,  rvvaHxa  frt'  abs%j^rj 
avtrjs,  x.t.'K.  So  the  Targum  of  Onkelos,  the  Samaritan,  the 
Syriac,  and  the  Arabic.  So  Coverdale  renders  it.  Indeed, 
there  is  no  interpretation  of  a  passage  better  settled  than 
this.  That  polygamy  ivas  tolerated  by  Moses,  will  further 
appear  from  the  following  remarks  : 

(1.)  The  act  of  legislation  in  Ex.  xxi.  7 — 10,  has  reference 
to  polygamy,  and  authorized  it.  "And  if  a  man  sell  his 
daughter  to  be  a  maid-servant,  she  shall  not  go  out  as  the 
men-ser/ants  do.  If  she  please  not  her  master,  who  hath 
betrothed  her  to  himself,  then  shall  he  let  her  be  redeemed  : 
to  sell  her  unto  a  strange  nation  he  shall  have  no  power, 
seeing  he  hath  dealt  deceitfully  with  her.  And  if  he  have 
betrothed  her  unto  his  son,  he  shall  deal  with  her  after  the 
manner  of  daughters.  If  he  take  him  another  wife,  her  food, 
her  raiment,  and  her  duty  of  marriage,  shall  he  not  diminish." 
The  case  supposed  is  that  of  an  Israelite  who  should  sell  his 
daughter  to  be  a  'maid-servant,'  and  that  the  daughter  thus 
'  sold'  might  be  '  betrothed'  to  him  or  to  his  son.  If,  after 
being  thus  betrothed  to  her  master,  she  did  not  please  him, 
the  law  was  that  she  should  be  allowed  to  be  redeemed.  In 
no  case  should  she  be  sold  to  a  strange  people.  In  case  she 
was  '  betrothed'  to  his  son,  and  he  chose  to  take  to  himself 
another  wife,  there  were  certain  things  which  were  not  to  be 
withheld  from  her.  She  was  not  to  be  discarded,  or  deprived 
of  support,  or  treated  in  any  other  way  than  she  would  have 
been  if  the  '  other  wife'  had  not  been  taken.  "  Her  food,  her 
raiment,  and  her  duty  of  marriage,  shall  he  not  diminish." 
The  argument  in  this  passage  turns  on  the  meaning  of  two 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  163 

words;  that  rendered  'betrothed,'  and  that  rendered  'duty 
of  marriage.'  About  the  former,  there  can  be  httle  difference 
of  opinion.  The  Hebrew  word  "J>"  means  properly,  to  point 
out,  to  appoint  J  to  fix.  The  idea  of  dcsia;nating^  appoint  in  i(, 
fixing — as  of  a  time  or  place  for  worship,  for  a  meeting,  for 
trial,  A:c.,  is  the  essential  idea  in  the  word.  Job  ii.  11,  ix.  19; 
PSeh.  vi.  2,  10;  Amos  iii.  3;  Jer.  xlix.  19,  1.  44.  It  is  ren- 
dered in  this  place,  by  Gesenius,  "to  fix  upon  as  a  wife  or 
concubine,  to  betroth  ;"  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
tiling  contemplated  was  such  a  designation  as  a  wife  or  as  a 
concubine,  since  she  had  already  been  '  purchased'  as  a  maid- 
servant. The  case  seems  to  have  been  such  as  would  not 
unfre(juently  occur,  in  which  after  one  had  been  procured  as 
a  'maid-servant'  by  the  promise  or  payment  of  wages,  or  of  a 
•price'  to  her  father — with  the  security  that  she  could  never 
be  'sold' — he  who  had  thus  secured  her  for  his  employ,  or 
his  son,  might  be  disposed  to  sustain  to  her  the  nearer  relation 
of  a  husband.  The  law  was  designed  to  guard  that  point,  so 
that  no  advantage  should  be  taken  of  her  condition  as  a  ser- 
vant, to  oppress  her,  or  to  do  her  wrong.  If  the  father  who 
had  secured  her  services  was  not  pleased  with  her,  after 
having  designed  to  enter  into  this  new  relation,  he  should  not 
take  advantage  of  the  fact  that  he  was  the  purchaser,  and  sell 
her,  but  should  allow  her  to  be  honourably  redeemed,  or 
restored  again  to  freedom ;  if  the  son,  who  had  no  claim  of 
purchase,  he  should  be  bound  to  treat  her  as  a  wife,  even  if 
he  chose  to  marry  another.  The  law,  therefore,  was  every 
way  humane,  and  was  designed  to  prevent  the  worst  kind  of 
oppression — that  of  an  unprotected  female  in  humble  life. 
The  other  word  on  which  the  interpretation  of  the  passage 
depends,  rendered  'duty  of  marriage,'  njix%  is  derived  from 
a  verb  (pV)  which  means  to  rest,  to  dwell ;  and  the  noun 
means  a  living  together,  cohabitation,  says  Gesenius,  "in 
the  conjugal  sense."  So  the  Talmud  understands  it  in  this 
place.  The  Hebrew  noun  occurs  nowhere  else  except  in 
Hos,  X.  10,  where  it  is  rendered /wrroM-'j,  though  the  reading 


164  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

there  is  doubtful,  and  by  a  different  pointing  the  word  would 
mean,  more  appropriately,  sins.  In  the  passage  before  us, 
the  versions  all  sustain  the  interpretation^  which  supposes  that 
the  reference  is  to  cohabitation  as  man  and  wife.  Thus 
the  Vulgate  renders  it,  et  pretium  pudicitise  non  negabit. 
The  Septuagint,  trjv  o^ixio.v  ovx  ajtoatspriasi — *  he  shall  not  de- 
prive her  of  her  marriage  rites.'*  The  Chaldee  Paraphrase 
has  the  same  word  as  the  Hebrew,  and  the  Arabic  renders 
it,  '  her  times.''  The  Syraic  renders  it  by  a  word  still  more 
expressive,  about  which  there  can  be  no  doubt,  meaning 
accubitus  ;  lying  with,  cohabitation.  There  can  be  no  well- 
founded  doubt,  therefore,  about  the  meaning  of  this  passage, 
(ver.  10,)  and  if  the  interpretation  given  be  correct,  it  proves 
that  Moses  contemplated,  that  in  the  case  referred  to,  while 
the  son  had  another  wife,  he  should  in  all  respects,  in  her 
food,  her  raiment,  and  in  respect  to  the  marriage  rights,  regard 
and  treat  her  as  his  wife.  He  was  not  at  hberty  to  treat  her 
otherwise  because  he  had  taken  another.  The  fair  meaning 
of  the  word  here,  it  seems  to  me,  will  not  bear  the  interpreta- 
tion proposed  by  Mr.  Phelps,t  of  habitation,  meaning  that  he 
should  furnish  her  a  residence.  If  it  will  not,  then  polygamy 
in  one  form  was  tolerated  by  Moses,  and  legislated  for. 

(2.)  The  act  of  legislation  in  Deut.  xxi.  15,  16,  proves  that 
polygamy  was  tolerated  by  Moses.  "If  a  man  have  two 
wives,  one  beloved,  and  another  hated,  and  they  have  born 
him  children,  both  the  beloved  and  the  hated  ;  and  if  the 
firstborn  son  be  her's  that  was  hated  :  then  it  shall  be,  when 
he  maketh  his  sons  to  inherit  that  which  he  hath,  that  he 
may  not  make  the  son  of  the  beloved  firstborn  before  the  son 
of  the  hated,  which  is  indeed  the  firstborn."  In  this  case  it 
is  supposed  that  a  man  might  have  *two  wives,'  and  the 
design  of  the  ordinance  is  to  prevent  a  kind  of  injustice  which 
would  not  be  unlikely  to  occur,  when  a  man,  in  disposing  of 
his  property  by  will,  might  be  induced  to  depart  from  the 

*  Thompson.  ■[  Letter  to  Prof.  Stowe. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVF.RY.  165 

usual  custom,  and  from  wliat  was  right  towards  the  lawful 
heir,  by  favouritism  towards  one  of  his  wives.  The  only- 
question  that  can  be  raised  on  this  point  is,  whether  the  pas- 
sage means  tliat  he  had  hud  two  wives,  either  one  succeed- 
ing the  other,  and  both  dead,  or  one  still  living ;  or  whether 
it  means  lliut  in  the  case  supposed  he  had  two  livii)«r  at  the 
time  here  referred  to.  Tlie  literal  meaning  of  the  Hebrew, 
j*'nr» '3  is,  'when  tliere  shall  be  to  a  man  two  wives;'  or 
when  a  man  shall  have  two  wives ;  most  naturally  and 
obviously  meaning,  at  the  same  time.  The  Septuagint 
expresses  it  in  the  same  sense,  Eav  hi  yuurrat  ai/^ptJTt&j  6v« 
yvioxxii.  It  may  be  added  here,  that  this  interpretation  is  so 
natural,  and  would  be  so  likely  to  be  put  upon  the  passage, 
that  if  Moses  had  meant  to  prohibit  polygamy?  he  could  not 
have  used  this  language.  He  would  not  have  left  it  open  to 
so  obvious  and  so  dangerous  an  interpretation.  It  was  clearly 
supposed  that  this  would  occur,  as  it  had  done  in  the  time  of 
the  patriarchs ;  and  one  can  hardly  help  believing  that  he 
had  an  actual  case  in  his  eye  like  that  of  Jacob.  Gen. 
rxix.  30. 

(3.j  It  may  be  added  in  proof  that  Moses  tolerated  poly- 
gamy, that  in  certain  circumstances,  he  made  it  a  subject  of 
express  command,  in  a  form  which  no  one  would  pretend  to 
vindicate  as  proper  now.  Deut.  xxv.  5 — 10.  This  instance 
at  least  shows,  that  though  a  man  had  a  wife  of  his  own, 
there  were  circumstances  in  which  it  was  proper  for  him  to 
cohabit  with  one  who  had  been  the  wife  of  another.  The 
point  of  the  remark  made  here  is,  that  this  ordinance  would 
not  have  existed  in  a  community  where  polygamy  was  in  no 
case  to  be  tolerated.  It  is  true  that  he  interdicted  many  wives 
to  the  kings  who  might  rule  over  the  people,  (Deut.  xvii.  17 
''Neither  shall  he  multiply  wives  to  himself,"  iVn3T  xS 
'he  shall  not  have  a  multitude  of  wives;')  but  this  verv  pro- 
hibition supposes  that  polygamy,  to  some  extent,  would  be 
practised  by  a  king.  That  polygamy  prevailed  in  the  time 
of  Moses,  see  Jahii'a  Archaeology,  §  151.    The  arrangements 


166  AN    INQUIRY  "into    THE 

of  Moses  have,  indeed,  been  shown  (see  Jahn)  to  be  such  that 
a  man  could  not  wclJ  have  more  than  four  wives,  but  there 
was  nothing  in  his  statutes  which  prevented  an  Israelite 
having  that  number,  and  it  would  seem  probable  that  he 
contemplated  it.*  The  doctrine  of  the  Talmud  and  the 
Rabbins  is,  that  an  Israelite  might  have  not  more  than 
four  wives.  The  reasons  for  supposing  that  the  number  of 
wives  tolerated  by  Moses  would  not  exceed  four,  may  be  seen 
in  Michaelis.  They  are  not  such  as  can  be  dwelt  on  here. 
Mohammed  also  limited  the  number  of  wives  to  four,  whether 
for  the  same  reason  is  unknown.  In  Deut.  xxi.  15 — 17,  it  is 
supposed  that  it  would  not  be  uncommon  for  a  man  to  have 
two  wives,  and  the  fact  that  this  would  occur  is  mentioned 
without  any  disapprobation  ;  nay,  it  becomes  just  as  much 
the  subject  of  legislation  as  slavery  is  in  the  Mosaic  institutes. 
"  If  a  man  have  two  wives,  one  beloved  and  another  hated," 
&c.  It  is  quite  clear,  however,  from  the  Mosaic  statutes,  that 
the  Hebrew  legislator  was  no  favourer  of  polygamy,  but  that 
he  meant  gradually  to  mitigate  its  evils,  and  to  make  such 
arrangements  that  it  should  finally  cease  to  be  practised  in 
the  Hebrew  commonwealth.  He  allowed  an  institution 
which  he  found  already  in  existence,  to  be  continued,  *  on 
account  of  the  hardness  of  the  hearts'  of  the  people.t  The 
same  was  manifestly  true  in  regard  to  slavery. 

{b)  Another  of  the  things  which  were  tolerated  by  Moses, 
and  for  which  arrangement  was  made  in  his  laws,  was  arbi- 
trary divorce.  On  this  subject  the  law  was  positive,  but  we 
know  that  it  was  not  regarded  as  the  best  arrangement  for 
society,  or  one  which  God  approved  per  se ;  and  yet  the 
whole  strength  of  the  argument  from  the  Mosaic  institutions 
in  favour  of  slavery  could  be  urged  in  favour  of  the  practice 
of  divorce  now.     The  Mosaic  arrangement  tolerated  divorce, 

•  See,  on  this  subject,  Michaelis'  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  Moses, 
art.  xcviii,,  and  Selden  dc  Uxore  Hebraka. 
I  See  Michaelis'  Com.,  eirt.  xcv.  xcvi.  xcvii. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVERY.  1G7 

it  would  seem,  to  any  extent,  and  made  the  continuance  of 
the  nmrriai^^e  relation  depend  wholly  on  the  pleasure  of  the 
husband.  Deut.  xxiv.  1,  seq.  It  demanded  only  that  the 
act  of  divorce  should  be  deliberate,  and  should  be  accompa- 
nied with  a  '  bill,'  or  with  proper  testimonials  given  to  the 
wife  that  she  was  at  liberty  to  marry  another.  This  requisi- 
tion would  prevent  hasty  acts,  and  would  tend  much  to  dimi- 
nish the  evil.  It  is  evident  that  Moses  found  the  practice 
already  in  existence,*  and  it  is  also  quite  clear  that  he  did 
not  approve  of  it,  or  regard  it  as  an  institution  tending  to  the 
best  interests  of  society.  The  Saviour  expresses  a  distinct 
disapprobation  of  the  practice  ;  says  that  '*  it  was  tolerated 
only  'on  account  of  the  hardness  of  the  hearts'  of  the  people, 
but  that  in  the  beginning  it  was  not  so."  Matth.  xix.  8 ; 
Mark  x.  5.  The  truth  was,  that  Moses  found  this  in  existence 
as  a  prevailing  practice  ;  that  it  had  become  incorporated  with 
the  habits  of  the  people  ;  that  they  regarded  the  right  of 
divorce  as  essential  to  the  proper  authority  and  hberty  of  the 
husband  ;  and  that  it  would  have  been  in  vain  for  him  to  have 
attempted  to  prohibit  it  entirely.  All  that  could  be  done, 
therefore,  in  the  case,  was  to  determine  by  statute  in  what 
circumstances,  and  for  what  causes,  it  might  take  place ;  to 
prevent,  as  far  as  possible,  all  hasty  and  arbitrary  acts  of  the 
husband  ;  to  prohibit  a  reunion  with  the  former  husband,  if  the 
wife  should  marry  again,  thus  securing  further  deliberation  ; 
and  so  to  arrange  every  thing  in  regard  to  it,  that  it  should  be 
manifest  that  the  spirit  of  his  institutions  was  against  it,  even 
while  it  was  tolerated.  But  assuredly  it  would  be  an  illegiti- 
mate method  of  reasoning  to  conclude  that  because  Moses 
tolerated  polygamy  and  divorce;  because  he  legislated  for 
them,  and  made  arrangements  that  they  might  be  continued, 
therefore  he  approved  of  them  as  necessary  to  the  best  state 
of  society,  and  meant  that  it  should  be  inferred  that  the  spirit 
of  his  institutions  was  favourable  to  them.     Still  less  could 

•  See  Michaelis'  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  Moses,  art  cxix. 


168 


AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 


it  be  inferred  that  they  were  to  be  perpetuated  in  all  states 
of  society,  and  at  all  periods  of  the  world,  as  desirable  arrange- 
ments for  the  promotion  of  human  happiness.  And  yet  the 
whole  of^he  argument  in  favour  of  slavery,  from  the  fact  that 
it  was  tolerated  in  the  Mosaic  institutions,  could  be  apphed  to 
polygamy  and  divorce.  Moses  sanctioned  the  one  no  more 
than  he  did  the  other.  He  made  no  more  permanent  arrange- 
ments for  the  one  than  he  did  for  the  other.  He  expressed 
no  more  approbation  of  the  one  than  he  did  of  the  other.  He 
wove  the  one  no  more  into  his  system  than  he  did  the  other. 
He  '  legislated'  no  more  for  the  one  than  he  did  for  the  other. 
Nay,  it  is  manifest  that  he  looked  with  a  less  favourable  eye 
on  slavery  than  he  did  on  polygamy  and  divorce.  He  made 
arrangements  by  which  slavery  was  periodically  to  cease  in 
his  commonwealth,  but  he  made  no  such  arrangements  for 
divorce  and  polygamy.  Yet  who  now  will  undertake  to 
maintain  that  because  these  were  tolerated,  and  legislated  for, 
in  the  Mosaic  statutes,  therefore  they  are  right  now,  and 
should  continue  to  prevail  for  the  best  interests  of  society  ? 

The  argument  on  this  point  from  the  Mosaic  toleration  of 
polygamy  and  divorce,  has  been  placed  in  so  strong  a  light 
by  Dr.  Wayland,  that  I  will  copy  it : — 

"Can  the  proposition,  'whatever was  sanctioned  to  the  He- 
brews is  sanctioned  to  ail  men  at  all  times,'  be  proved  from 
revelation  ?  It  seems  to  me  that  precisely  the  reverse  is  the 
fact.  To  arrive  at  the  truth  in  this  case  it  is  only  necessary 
to  inquire  whether  there  were  any  acts  sanctioned  to  the  He- 
brews by  Moses  which  are  not  sanctioned  to  all  men. 

"  Take,  for  instance,  the  whole  Mosaic  code  of  civil  law,  its 
severe  enactments,  its  very  frequent  capital  punishments,  its 
cities  of  refuge,  its  tenure  of  real  estate.  Could  any  legisla- 
tor at  the  present  day  enact  similar  laws,  and  justly  plead  as 
a  sufficient  reason  that  God  had  sanctioned,  nay  enacted,  such 
laws  for  the  Jews?  Would  this  be  a  sufficient  reason  for 
abolishing  the  trial  by  jury  in  a  case  of  accidental  homicide, 
(as  for  instance  when  the  head  of  an  axe  slipped  from  the 


SCRIPTURAL    Vir.WS    OF    SLAVKRY.  169 

helve  and  wounded  a  man  to  death,)  and  enacting  that  the 
next  akin  miqhi  slay  an  innocent  person  if  he  overtook  him 
before  he  arrived  at  a  city  of  refuge?  I  think  every  one 
must  immediately  perceive  that  this  law  was  a  humane  limita- 
tion to  the  spirit  of  Oriental  vindiciiveness,  but  that  it  would 
be  very  wrong  to  put  it  in  practice  at  the  present  day. 

*'  But  we  are  not  left  to  our  own  reasonings  on  this  subject. 
We  know  full  well  that  polygamy  and  divorce  are  wrong, 
that  they  violate  the  obligations  established  by  God  between 
the  sexes,  and  are  transgressions  of  his  positive  law.  On 
this  subject  I  presume  we  can  have  no  difierence  of  opinion. 
Yet  these  sins  were  not  forbidden  by  Moses.  Kay  more, 
laws  were  enacted  by  the  Hebrew  legislator  in  respect  to  both 
of  these  practices.  When  a  man  was  already  united  to  one 
wife,  and  chose  to  take  another,  the  manner  in  Avhich  the  first 
wife  was  to  be  put  away  was  prescribed.  The  right  of  the 
first-born  was  al^o  in  such  a  case  defined.  When,  again,  a 
Hebrew  wished  to  divorce  a  wife,  the  manner  in  which  this 
should  be  done  was  a  matter  of  positive  enactment.  The 
discussion  of  our  Saviour  with  the  Jews  on  this  subject  is 
given  us  in  Matt.  xix.  3 — 9.  I  will  quote  the  whole  passage. 
*The  Pharisees  also  came  unto  him,  tempting  him,  and  say- 
ing unto  him.  Is  it  lawful  for  a  man  to  put  away  his  wife  for 
every  cause  ?  And  he  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Have 
ye  not  read  that  at  the  beginning,  when  the  Creator  made 
man,  he  formed  a  male  and  a  female,  and  said.  For  this  cause 
a  man  shall  leave  father  and  mother  and  adhere  to  his  wife, 
and  they  two  shall  be  one  flesh.  Wherefore  they  are  no 
longer  two,  but  one  flesh.  What  therefore  God  hath  con- 
joined, let  not  man  separate.  They  replied.  Why  then  did 
Moses  command  to  give  her  a  writing  of  divorcement  and 
dismiss  her?  He  answered,  Moses  indeed,  because  of  your 
initraciable  dispoailion,  permitted  you  to  divorce  your  wives, 
but  it  was  not  so  from  the  beginning.  Therefore  I  say  unto 
you,  whosoever  divorceth  his  wife  except  for  whoredom,  and 
marrieth  another,  committeth  adultery,*  &c.     You  perceive 

15 


170  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

I  have  used  the  translation  of  Dr.  Campbell,  who  seems  to 
have  understood  the  scope  of  the  argument  better  than  the 
authors  of  our  version. 

"  Now  concerning  this  decision  of  our  Lord,  several  things 
are  to  be  remarked  : 

"  1.  Oar  Lord  authoritatively  lays  down  the  law  of  mar- 
riage, defining  it  to  be  an  exclusive  engagement  between  two 
parties  for  life. 

"  2.  He  not  only  does  this,  but  he  declares  that  this  doc- 
trine was  taught  from  the  creation,  quoting  Genesis  ii.  24,  ia 
confirmation  of  his  assertion. 

"3.  Notwithstanding  this,  Moses  had  sanctioned  divorce ; 
that  is,  he  had  not  forbidden  it,  and  had  enacted  laws  for  the 
regulation  of  it. 

"  4.  And  moreover,  the  reason  of  this  is  given ;  it  was  be- 
cause of  the  hardness  of  their  hearts,  or  their  untractable  dis- 
position. 

"  Here  then  is  an  institution  sanctioned  ;  that  is,  permitted 
and  made  a  subject  of  legislation,  which  is  wrong  in  itself, 
and  therefore  forbidden  by  our  Saviour  to  them  and  to  a\\ 
men.  Nay,  it  had  been  thus  sanctioned,  although  a  prior 
revelation  had  discountenanced  it.  It  is  therefore  clear,  that 
a  practice  may  have  been  sanctioned  to  the  Hebrews,  which 
is  not  sanctioned  to  all  men  at  all  times ;  nay,  which  before 
and  after  a  particular  period  was  not  sanctioned  even  to  the 
Hebrews  themselves.  I  think,  therefore,  that  the  teaching 
of  the  Scriptures  is  diametrically  at  variance  with  the  propo- 
sition on  which  the  whole  argument  from  the  Old  Testament 
is  founded."* 

Keeping  the  Mosaic  institutions  on  the  subject  of  slavery 
in  view,  I  shall  proceed  now  to  compare  them  with  those  ex- 
isting in  our  own  country.  It  will  be  convenient  to  arrange 
the  various  topics  substantially  in  the  order  in  which  we  have 
contemplated  them;  and  the  object  will  be  to  show  that  in  all 

*  Fuller  and  Wayland  on  Slavery,  pp.  54 — 57. 


SCUIl'TURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVERY.  171 

essentiRl  features,  the  Mosaic  arrangements  in  regard  to  sla- 
very diirored  entirely  from  those  existing  in  this  land.  The 
inference  which  will  be  derived  from  such  a  comparison  will 
Us  that  the  Mosaic  institutions  cannot  be  referred  to,  to  sanction 
slavery  as  it  exists  at  present.  The  points  to  which  I  refer 
are  the  following  : — 

(1.)  The  arrangements  in  the  two  systems  respecting 
hard  and  oppressive  usage.  We  have  seen  that  under  the 
Mosaic  insfilutions,  the  rights  of  the  slave  were  carefully 
guarded  on  this  subject,  and  that  if  he  were  subjected  to  such 
usage  he  had  a  redress  by  claiming  his  freedom.  We  have 
seen  that  there  were  express  statutes  requiring  that  slaves 
should  be  treated  with  humanity  and  kindness ;  that  if  they 
were  maimed  by  their  masters  they  had  a  right  to  liberty  ; 
and  that  there  were  many  solemn  injunctions  to  treat  the 
stranger  with  kindness,  no  matter  what  relation  he  might 
sustain. 

The  question  now  is,  whether  there  are  any  such  provisions 
in  the  laws  in  this  land,  or  whether  there  is  any  securitj'  that  the 
slave  will  be  preserved  from  hard  and  oppressive  usage  ?  The 
question  is  not,  whether  there  may  not  be  masters  who  treat 
their  slaves  with  kindness,  but  whether  the  laws  furnish  any 
security  for  the  slave  on  this  point  ?  It  is  not  whether  a 
master  may  not  abuse  his  power,  but  it  is  whether  the  law 
does  not  give  him  such  power  that  the  slave  has  no  redress, 
as  he  had  under  the  Hebrew  commonwealth  ?  If  it  be  so, 
certainly  the  Mosaic  enactments  cannot,  so  far  as  this  point  is 
concerned,  be  adduced  in  defence  of  slavery  in  the  United 
States.  The  following  laws  of  the  slave  states  of  this  Union 
will  show  what  is  the  spirit  of  servitude  here,  and  will  illus- 
trate the  striking  contrast  between  slavery  here  and  in  the 
Hebrew  commonwealth.* 


*  For  the  laws  of  the  slave  plates  on  this  subject,  I  am  bidebtcd  mainly 
to  "A  Sketch  of  the  Laws  relating  to  Slavery  in  the  several  States  of  the 
United    State*    of  America.    By  George    M.  Stroud."     Thia  work  wag 


172  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

"The  master  may,  at  his  discretion,  inflict  ant 
species  of  punishment  upon  the    person  of  his  slave.'** 

In  particular,  (a)  The  murder  of  a  slave  lias  in  general  subjected 
the  murderer  to  a  pecuniary  fine  only.  "  There  was  a  time 
in  many,  if  not  in  all  the  slave-holding  districts  of  our  coun- 
try, when  the  murder  of  a  slave  was  followed  by  a  pecuniary 
fine  only.  In  one  state,  a  change  of  the  law  in  this  respect 
has  been  very  recent.  At  the  present  date,  the  wilful,  ma- 
licious, deliberate  murder  of  a  slave,  by  whomsoever  perpe- 
trated, is  declared  to  be  punishable  with  death  in  every  state. "t 
It  should  be  remembered,  however,  that  there  must  be  great 
difficulty  of  convicting  a  white  man,  and  especially  a  master, 
of  such  an  offence.  No  slave  is  allowed  to  give  testimony 
against  a  white  man  ;|  and  of  course,  in  most  cases  it  would 
be  impossible  to  bring  a  white  murderer  of  a  slave  to  justice. 
There  might  be  many  witnesses  of  the  deed,  and  yet  not  one 
of  them  be  allowed  to  testify  to  Avhat  he  had  himself  seen. 
It  cannot  be  doubted  that  not  a  few  slaves  have  been  murdered 
by  their  masters  in  this  land.  Has  there  ever  been  a  convic- 
tion for  such  an  offence  ?  Has  a  master  ever  been  punished 
capitally  for  such  a  crime  ?  Is  he  commonly  punished  at  all  ? 
Is  it  a  common  occurrence  to  convict  any  white  man  for  a 
wrong  done  to  a  slave,  except  so  far  as  the  slave  is  regarded 
as  the  property  of  another  man  ?  On  the  practical  operation 
of  the  law  of  the  slave  states  respecting  testimony,  and  the 

published  in  Philadelphia  in  1827.  It  is  now  out  of  print.  Of  the  quali- 
fications of  Judge  Stroud  for  such  a  work,  no  one  can  doubt;  and  the 
accuracy  of  the  work  has  never  been  called  in  question.  The  slave  laws 
since  the  time  of  the  publication  of  that  work  have  undergone  too  un- 
important changes  to  make  the  quotations  now  irrelevant  to  show  the 
general  spirit  of  slavery. 

*  Stroud,  p.  35.     The  capitals  are  his. 

f  Stroud,  p.  36. 

i  1  Rev.  C.  Virg.  422 ;  2  Miss.  Laws,  600;  Mississippi  Rev.  Code,  372; 
2  Litt.  and  Swi.  1150;  Maryland  Laws,  act  of  1817,  and  North  Carolina 
and  Tennessee  Laws,  1777. 


scRirini-VL  vn:\vs  of  slavkuv.  173 

dilTiculty  of  convicting  a  whilf  man,  and  thd  fact  that  tliose 
laws  place  a  slave  coinj)l«'toly  at  the  disposal  of  his  master, 
Judge  Stroud  well  remarks,  '*  It  [the  law  that  no  slave  can  be 
a  witness  against  a  white  person]  places  the  slave,  who  is 
seldom  within  the  view  of  more  than  one  white  person  at  a 
time,  entirely  at  the  mercy  of  this  individual,  without  regard 
to  his  fitness  for  the  exercise  of  power — whether  his  temper 
be  mild  and  merciful,  or  fierce  and  vindictive.  A  white  man 
may,  if  no  other  individual  be  present,  torture,  maim,  and 
even  murder  his  slave,  in  the  midst  of  any  number  of  negroes 
and  mulattoes.  Having  absolute  dominion  over  his  slave,  the 
master,  or  his  delegate,  if  disposed  to  commit  illegal  violence 
upon  him,  may  easily  remove  him  to  a  spot  safe  from  the 
observation  of  a  competent  witness." — p.  06.  (b)  The  laws 
of  some  of  the  slav^e  states  expressly  acquit  the  master  for 
killing  his  slave,  if  it  be  done  when  inflicting  moderate 
CORRECTION.  The  law  of  North  Carolina,  sect.  3,  of  the  act 
of  ITUS,  on  this  subject,  is  in  the  following  words  : — "  Where- 
as by  another  act  of  Assembly,  passed  in  the  year  1774,  the 
killing  of  a  slave,  however  wanton,  cool,  and  deliberate,  is 
only  punished  in  the  first  instance  by  imprisonment  and  pay- 
ing the  value  thereof  to  the  owner,  which  distinction  of  cri- 
minality between  the  murder  of  a  white  person  and  one  who 
is  equally  a  human  creature,  but  merely  of  a  different  com- 
plexion, is  disgraceful  to  humanity,  and  degrading  in  the 
highest  degree  to  the  laws  and  principles  of  a  free,  Christian, 
and  enlightened  country :  Be  it  enacted,  &c..  That  if  any 
person  shall  hereafter  be  guilty  of  wilfully  or  maliciou.^^ly 
killing  a  slave,  such  offender  shall,  upon  the  first  conviction 
thereof,  be  adjudged  guilty  of  murder,  and  shall  suffer  the 
same  punishment  as  if  he  had  killed  a  free  man  :  Provided 
uhrays,  this  act  shall  not  extend  to  the  person  killing  a 
slave  outlawed  by  virtue  of  any  act  of  Assembly  of  (his  statCj 
or  to  any  slave  in  the  act  of  resistance  to  his  laufitl  owner 
or  master,  or  to  any  slave  dyino  inder  moderate  cor- 
15* 


174  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

RECTioN."*  The  language  of  the  constitution  of  Georgia  is 
nearly  the  same.  "  Any  person  who  shall  maliciously  dis- 
member or  deprive  a  slave  of  hfe,  shall  suffer  such  punish- 
ment as  would  be  inflicted  in  case  the  like  offence  had  been 
committed  on  a  free  white  person,  and  on  the  like  proof,  ex- 
cept in  case  of  insurrection  of  such  slave,  and  unless  such 

DEATH    SHOULD    HAPPEN    BY    ACCIDENT    IN    GIVING    SUCH   SLAVE 

MODERATE  CORRECTION. "t  (c)  If  the  life  of  a  slave  is  so  feebly 
protected  by  law,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  he  would  be 
defended  from  wrongs  done  in  other  respects  against  his  per- 
son. Accordingly  we  find,  that  the  slave  is,  not  only  neces- 
sarily, from  the  nature  of  the  case,  but  by  the  laws,  almost 
entirely  at  the  disposal  of  the  master.  Wrongs  done  by  the 
master  to  the  slave  are  regarded  as  comparatively  trivial 
offences,  and  even  on  the  supposition  that  he  could  be  con- 
victed, the  punishment  is  trifling.  The  act  of  South  Carolina 
for  1740,  says,  "  In  case  any  person  shall  wilfully  cut  out 
the  tongue,  put  out  the  eye,  ******,  or  cruelly  scald,  burn, 
or  deprive  any  slave  of  his  limb,  or  member,  or  shall  inflict 
any  other  cruel  punishment,  other  than  by  whipping  or 
beating  with  a  horsewhip  or  cowskin,  switch  or  small  stick, 
or  by  putting  irons  on,  or  confining  or  imprisoning  such 
slave,  every  such  person  shall,  for  ever}'  such  offence,  forfeit 
the  sum  of  one  hundred  pounds,  current  money. "J  Here 
we  may  make  the  following  obvious  remarks  :  (1.)  The  strong 
contrast  between  this  and  the  Mosaic  law :  "  If  any  man  smite 
the  eye  of  his  servant,  or  the  eye  of  his  maid,  that  it  perish, 
he  shall  let  him  go  free  for  his  eye's  sake.  And  if  he  smite 
out  his  man-servant's  tooth,  or  his  maid-servant's  tooth,  he 
shall  let  him  go  free  for  his  tooth's  sake."  (2.)  The  trifling 
penalty  which  the  law  imposes — of  "  one  hundred  pounds" — 
for  wrongs  which  would  render  a  human  being  wretched  for 

*  Haywood's  Manual,  530.     See  also  the  Laws  of  Tennessee,  act  of 
October  23,  1799,  with  a  like  proviso. 

f  Prince's  Disest,  559.  4  2  Brevard's  Digest,  241. 


SCRIPTUUAL    VIKVVS    OF    SLAVKUY.  175 

life.     (li.)  The  permission  given  to  inflict  certain  classes  of 
wronps   at  the   pleasure  of  the  master.     Thus  the  law  ex- 
pressly allows  the  i'oUowing  things :   (a)  scalding  and  burn- 
ing,  provided  they  be  not  "  cruel ;''  {h)  ivhipping  or  beatinsr 
with  a  homeuhipy  coirskin,  switch,  or  small  stick;  (c)  put- 
ting  on  ironsj  and  ((/)  ^//;>r^*o;^7/lf/J^  apparently  at  pleasure. 
A  similar  provision  is  found  in  the  new  Civil  Code  of  Louisiana : 
♦'The  slave  is  entirely  subject  to  the  will  of  his  master,  who 
may  correct  and  chastise  him,  though  not  with  vnusiial  rigor, 
nor  so  as  to  maim  or  mutilate  him,  or  to  expose  him  to  the 
danger  of  loss  of  life,  or  to  cause  his  death."*     Here,  then,  are 
two  limitations  only  of  the  power  of  the  master  over  the  slave. 
The  first  is,  that  he  shall  not  be  at  liberty  to  cause  the  death 
of  the  slave  ;   and  the  second   is,  that  he  shall  not  punish 
him  with  "  unusual  rigor."     Respecting  this,  it  would  seem 
that  the  common  methods  of  punishing  slaves  on  neighbouring 
plantations  were  to  be  the  standard,  and  that  the  master  was 
to  be  the  sole  judge  whether  he  exceeded  that.     So  in  Mis- 
sissippi, while  the  laws  require  the  "owners  of  slaves  to  treat 
them  with  humanity,  and  to  abstain  from  all  injuries  to  them 
extending  to  life  and  limbs,"  they  also  ordain  that  "no  cruel 
or  unusual  punishment  shall  be  inflicted  on  any  slave  within 
this  state.     And  any  master  or  other  person,  entitled  to  the 
service  of  any  slave,  who  shall  inflict  such  cruel  or  unusual 
punishment,  or  shall  authorize  or  permit  the  same  to  be  in- 
flicted, shall,  on  conviction,  be  fined  according  to  the  magni- 
tude of  the  oflence,  in  any  sum  not  exceeding  five  hundred 
dollars."!     Here   we   may   remark  (1.)  that  it  is,  from   the 
nature  of  the  case,  exceedingly  difficult  to  convict  a  master 
of  wrong  done  to  a  slave,  from  the  fact  above  referred  to,  that 
no  slave  can  be  a  witness  ;  and  (2.)  that  the  law  authorizes 
the  infliction  of  any  punishment  provided  it  be  not  "  cruel,* 
or  ''unusual.'^     But  what  horrid  crimes  and  wrongs  may  be 
done  by  a  master  before  he  shall  reach  the  point  in  punish- 

•  Civil  Code  of  Louisiana,  art.  173.  \  Rev.  Code,  370. 


176  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

ment  that  he  will  himself  regard  as  "  cruel,"  or  beyond  that 
which  is  "  unusual"  in  slav^eholding  communities  !  So  in 
Missouri,  the  law  gives  the  master  the  power  of  confining  a 
slave  in  prison  during  his  own  pleasure,  evidently  for  hfe  if 
he  pleases,  and  that  without  judge  or  jury,  with  none  of  the 
privileges  of  habeas  corpus ;  with  no  power  of  escaping. 
*'  If  any  slave  resist  his  or  her  master,  mistress,  overseer,  or 
employer,  or  refuse  to  obey  his  or  her  lawful  commands,  it 
shall  be  lawful  for  such  master,  &c.,  to  commit  such  slave  to 
the  common  jail  of  the  county,  there  to  remain  at  the  plea- 
sure of  the  master,  &c.  ;  and  the  sheriff  shall  receive  such 
slave,  and  keep  him,  &c.,  in  confinement  at  the  expense  of 
the  person  committing  him  or  her."*  Here  the  only  security 
for  the  slave,  so  far  as  the  law  goes,  is  the  expense  which  the 
master  must  incur  for  his  maintenance.  It  may  be  probable 
that,  from  the  fiict  that  the  master,  if  cruel  and  vindictive, 
may  gratify  his  disposition  in  a  manner  less  expensive,  this 
law  will  not  be  likely  to  be  abused ;  yet  it  is  clear  that  the 
slave  is,  in  this  respect,  wholly  at  his  disposal.  He  is  to 
judge  when  the  offence  demands  imprisonment,  and  if  so, 
how  long ;  and  the  officer  of  justice,  appointed  in  a  "  land 
of  freedom"  for  the  execution  of  the  laws,  is  to  receive  the 
slave  at  his  hands,  and  be  the  executioner  of  his  will,  even  if 
the  imprisonment  should  continue  for  life.  On  these  laws 
of  the  slave  states.  Judge  Stroud  well  remarks,  "  Upon  a  fair 
review,  the  result  is  found  to  be:  That  the  master's  power 
to  inflict  corporeal  punishment,  to  any  extent  short  of  life  and 
limb,  is  fully  sanctioned  by  law,  in  all  the  slave-holding  states ; 
that  the  master,  in  at  least  two  states,  is  expressly  protected  in 
using  the  horsewhip  and  cowskin,  as  instruments  of  beating 
his  slave ;  that  he  may,  with  entire  impunity,  in  the  same 
slates,  load  his  slave  with  irons,  or  subject  him  to  perpetual 
imprisonment  whenever  he  may  so  choose ;  that  for  cruelly 
scalding,  wilfully  cutting  out  the  tongue,  putting  out  an  eye, 

•  1  Missouri  Laws,  309. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OK    SLAVKRV.  177 

&c.,  and  for  any  other  di^nicmbcnncnt,  if  proved,  a  fine  of  one 
hundrotl  pounds  currency  only  is  incurred  in  South  Carolina; 
ihat  lliouph  in  all  the  states  the  wilful,  deliberate,  and  mali- 
cious murder  of  the  slave  is  now  directed  to  be  punishi-d  with 
death,  yet  as  in  the  case  of  a  u/iite  offender,  none  excrpt 
whites  can  give  evidence,  a  conviction  can  seldom,  if  ever, 
take  place." — pp.  43 — 44.  Let  these  laws  be  compared  with 
those  of  Moses  already  referred  to  in  regard  to  the  treatment 
of  slaves,  and  it  will  not  be  dilficult  to  determine  whether  the 
Hebrew  institutions  furnish  a  sanction  for  slavery  as  it  exists 
in  this  land. 

(2.)  In  illustration  of  the  same  point  we  may  refer  to  the 
difference  of  the  systems  respecting  the  lime  allowed  to  the 
slave  for  his  own  use.  In  the  examination  of  the  -Mosaic 
system,  we  found  that  Moses  secured  for  the  slave  bij  law  an 
important  portion  of  his  time,  either  for  the  acquisition  of  pro- 
perty, or  for  intellectual,  moral,  or  religious  improvement. 
The  slave  had  every  seventh  day ;  ever^'  seventh  year ;  the 
whole  of  the  days  devoted  to  the  national  festivals,  and  the 
privilege  of  attending  on  all  the  family  festivals.  According 
to  the  estimate  then  made,  it  was  supposed  that  the  Hebrew 
servant  would  have  for  his  own  purposes  something  like 
twenty-three  years  out  of  the  fifty,  if  he  served  from  one  ju- 
bilee to  another.  It  is  scarcely  necessary,  however,  to  remark, 
that  in  our  own  country  no  such  arrangements  exist,  and  that 
the  lairs  do  not  contemplate  that  any  of  the  time  of  the  slave 
shall  be  his  own.  His  entire  time^  as  well  as  his  bodily 
vigor  and  skill,  is  the  property  of  his  master.  There  is  none 
in  which  he  may  not,  according  to  the  law,  be  employed  in  the 
service  of  his  master.  So  far  as  the  law  is  concerned,  there 
is  no  day  or  hour  in  which  he  may  cultivate  a  piece  of 
ground  for  himself;  there  is  none  which  he  might  take  to 
read — if  he  can  read — or  to  pray.  The  master  may  call  him 
from  his  little  patch  of  ground,  from  his  family,  and  from  his 
"closet"  at  any  hour  to  labour  in  his  service.  The  Sabbath 
may  be  given,  and  1  presume  usually  is  given,  to  the  slave  ; 


178 


AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 


but  it  is  not  secured  expressly  for  him  by  law,  except  in 
Louisiana  and  Mississippi,  as  it  was  among  the  Hebrews.  A 
half  day  or  more  in  the  week  may  be  given,  and  we  know 
that  it  is  often  given,  but  it  is  not  an  arrangement  of  law  ;  it 
is  wholly  at  the  discretion  of  the  master.  It  may  be  a  fact 
also  that  at  certain  seasons  of  the  year,  and  on  certain  plan- 
tations, the  tasks  may  be  of  such  a  character  that  they  can  be 
accomplished,  so  that  a  considerable  part  of  the  day  may  be 
secured  by  ihe  slave  for  himself,  but  this  is  not  an  arrange- 
ment made  by  law.  It  is  wholly  at  the  pleasure  of  the  mas- 
ter, and  it  may  be  confidently  affirmed  that  there  are  no  laws 
in  the  slaveholding  slates  of  this  Union,  except  in  Louisiana 
and  Mississippi,  which  secure  to  the  slave  any  time  whatever 
for  his  own  service. 

(3.)  In  like  manner,  and  as  a  consequence  of  this,  the  slave 
is  not  regarded  as  one  who  can  have  any  right  to  property.* 
He  cannot  be  the  legal  owner  of  a  piece  of  land,  of  a  house, 
of  a  horse,  of  a  cow,  or  of  an  article  of  husbandry.  He  could 
not  be  the  proprietor  of  a  patent  for  a  valuable  invention  or 
improvement  in  machinery  or  agriculture,  though  the  inven- 
tion were  his  own.  He  could  not  be  the  legal  holder  of  the 
copyright  of  a  book,  if  he  could  write  a  book.  He  could 
have  no  legal  right  of  property  in  the  most  valuable  mine  of 
silver  or  gold  that  he  might  discover.  It  would  all  be  legally 
the  property  of  his  master.!  The  Roman  law  said  :  Servile 
capntmullum  jus  habet,  ideo  nee  minui  potest.!  "  In  Rome, 
indeed,  the  slave  could,  by  great  diligence  and  economy,  ac- 
quire a  scanty  property  (peculium);  but,  strictly  considered,  all 
this,  together  with  the  slave  himself,  belonged  to  the  master, 
and  might  be  retained  by  him  at  the  period  of  manumission. "§ 
In  this  country,  it  is  a  settled  principle  that  a  slave  can  own 
no  property.     In  examining  the  Mosaic  institution,  we  found 

•  Comp.  Ch.  I. 

\  Comp.  G,  W.  Becker,  on  Roman  Slavery,  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra, 
vol.  ii.  pp.  572,  573. 

i  Digesta,  iv.  5,  3  §  Becker, 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  179 

that  ihe  servant  inii^ht  btcome  possessed  of  a  considerable 
amount  of  property  which  he  could  regard  as  his  own.  We 
found  that  it  was  contemplated  that  he  might  be  able  to  pur- 
chase his  own  freedom  by  the  avails  of  his  own  labour,  and 
that  if  he  could  do  this  at  a  fair  valuation,  he  had  the  right  to 
do  it.  We  found,  also,  that  when  he  was  released  by  the 
expiration  of  the  term  of  service  as  fixed  by  law,  provision 
was  made  that  he  should  be  made  comfortable.  We  found, 
also,  that  he  might  become  the  heir  to  his  master,  and  might 
hope  to  share  his  property  if  he  was  faithful  in  his  service. 

Far  different  from  the  Hebrew  laws  are  the  legal  arrange- 
ments in  the  United  States.  Here  the  slave  himself  is  re- 
garded as  property  in  the  most  absolute  sense,  and  of  course 
all  that  he  can  earn  becomes  the  property  of  his  master,  as 
much  as  that  earned  by  the  horse  does.  It  is  not  even  con- 
ceded that  the  slave  may  in  any  circumstances  ever  own  pro- 
perty. It  is  expressly  prohibited  ;  and  a  claim  of  property  on 
his  part  becomes  a  crime,  and  there  are  express  and  solemn 
acts  of  legislation  to  deprive  him  of  any  little  articles  of  property 
which  he  may  have  acquired.  The  following  enactments  will 
put  this  beyond  dispute.  Thus,  in  South  Carolina  :  "  It  shall 
not  be  lawful  for  any  slave  to  buy,  sell,  trade,  &c.,  for  any 
goods,  &c.,  without  a  license  from  the  owner, &c.,  nor  shall  any 
slave  be  permitted  to  keep  any  boat,  periauger,  or  canoe,  or 
raise  and  breed  for  the  benefit  of  such  slave,  any  horses,  mares, 
cattle,  sheep,  or  hogs,  under  pain  of  forfeiting  all  the  goods,  &c., 
and  all  the  boats,  periaugers  or  canoes,  horses,  mares,  cattle, 
sheep,  or  hogs.  And  it  shall  be  lawful  for  any  person  what- 
ever, to  seize  and  take  away  from  any  such  slave,  all  such 
goods,  &c.,  boats,  &c.,  &c.,  and  to  deliver  the  same  into  the 
hands  of  any  justice  of  the  peace,  nearest  to  the  place  where 
the  seizure  shall  be  made,  and  such  justice  shall  take  the  oath 
of  the  person  making  such  seizure,  concerning  the  manner 
thereof;  and  if  the  said  justice  shall  be  satisfied  that  such 
seizure  has  been  made  according  to  law,  he  shall  pronounce 
and  declare  the  goods  so  seized  to  be  forfeited,  and  order  the 


ISO  AN    INQUIRY    INTO   THE 

same  to  be  sold  at  public  outcry,  one  half  of  the  moneys 
arising  from  such  sale  to  go  to  the  state,  and  the  other  half  to 
him  or  them  that  sue  for  the  same."*  The  act  of  the  legis- 
lature of  Georgia  is  in  nearly  the  same  words. t  And  lest 
perchance  the  benevolence  of  the  master  should  sometimes 
permit  the  slave  to  hire  himself  to  another  for  his  own  benefit, 
Georgia  has  imposed  a  penalty  of  thirty  dollars  "  for  every 
weekly  offence  on  the  part  of  the  master,  unless  the  labour  be 
done  on  his  own  premises."!  So  in  Kentucky,  with  a  slight 
modification.§  In  Virginia,  if  the  master  shall  permit  the 
slave  to  hire  himself  out,  it  is  made  lawful  for  any  person^ 
and  the  duty  of  the  sheriff,  to  apprehend  such  slave,  and  the 
master  shall  be  fined  not  less  than  ten  dollars,  and  not  more 
than  twenty. II  So  in  Missouri.^  In  the  year  1779,  North 
Carolina  enacted  as  follows :  "  AH  horses,  cattle,  hogs,  or 
sheep,  that  one  month  after  passing  this  act  shall  belong  to 
any  slave,  or  be  of  any  slave's  mark,  in  this  state,  shall  be 
seized  and  sold  by  the  county  wardens,  and  by  them  applied, 
the  one  half  to  the  support  of  the  poor  of  the  county,  and  the 
other  half  to  the  informer."=^*  So  also  substantially  in  Mary- 
land,tt  and  Mississippi. ±1  In  the  Civil  Code  of  Louisiana  it  is 
ordained,  "  Jill  that  a  slave  possesses  belongs  to  his  master  ; 
he  possesses  nothing  of  his  own,  except  his  pecuhum,  that 
is  to  say,  the  sum  of  money  or  movable  estate  which  his 
master  chooses  he  should possess.^'§§  So  slaves  are  declared 
uniformly  incapable  of  inheriting  property.  Thus  in  Louisi- 
ana, "Slaves  are  incapable  of  inheriting  or  transmitting  pro- 
perty."||||  Slaves  cannot  dispose  of  or  receive  by  donation 
inter  vivos  or  mortis  causa,  unless  they  have  been  previously 

*  James'  Digest,  385  b;  Act  of  1740.  f  Prince's  Digest,  453. 

^  Prince's  Digest,  457. 

§  2  Litt.  and  Swi.  Digest,  1 159, 1 160.     See  Mississippi  Rev.  Code,  375; 
Laws  of  Tennessee,  Oct.  23,  1813,  ch.  135;  Stroud's  Slave  Laws,  p.  47. 
II  1  Rev.  Code,  374,  375.  t  3  Missouri  Laws,  743. 

•*  Haywood's  Manual,  526.  ff  April  Sessions,  1787,  ch.  33. 

^\  Rev.  Code,  374.  §§  Art.  175.  iU  Civil  Code,  art  945. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  181 

and  expressly  enfranchised  confornmbly  to  law,  or  unless  they 
are  expressly  onfranchisod  by  the  act  by  which  the  donation 
is  made  to  them.*  "The  earning^s  of  slaves,  and  the  price  of 
their  service,  belong:  to  their  owners,  who  have  their  action  to 
recover  the  amount  from  those  who  have  employed  thtm,"t 
So  in  the  decisions  of  the  court  of  South  Carolina,  "  Slaves 
cannot  take  property  by  descent  or  purchase  ;'*|  and  in 
North  Carolina,  **  Slaves  cannot  take  by  sale,  or  devise,  or 
descent.  "§ 

These  statutes  and  judicial  decisions  settle  the  question  in 
regard  to  the  legal  right  of  the  slave  to  hold  any  property 
whatever.  All  belongs  to  his  master.  If  he  earns  any  thing, 
it  belongs  to  the  master.  If  he  is  ever  hired  out,  the  wages 
belong  to  his  master.  If  he  should  make  a  valuable  improve- 
ment in  the  arts,  the  avails  of  it  would  be  his  master's.  If  he 
should  write  a  book,  the  copyright  would  be  his  master's. 
If  he  should  find  a  mine  of  gold,  or  a  purse,  or  if  property 
should  be  given  to  him,  it  belongs  to  his  master.  Of  course, 
the  question  about  purchasing  his  own  freedom  is  in  every 
respect  at  the  disposal  of  his  master.  He  never  could,  in 
any  way,  by  gift  or  earning,  become  the  owner  of  so  much 
property  as  to  be  able  to  purchase  his  freedom  without  his 
consent,  and  if  he  could,  the  question  whether  he  could  obtain 
it  is  still  lodged  solely  with  his  master.  As  a  matter  of  fact , 
the  slave  has  not  the  means  of  purchasing  his  freedom.  If  he 
has  a  little  piece  of  ground  for  his  own  cultivation,  and  if  he 
is  allowed  to  till  it  at  night  or  on  the  Sabbath  ;  or  if,  as  may 
be  sometimes  the  case,  the  master  may  allow  him  half  a  day 
in  the  week  to  till  it  for  himself,  the  utmost  that  he  can 
usually  earn  is  from  twelve  to  twenty  dollars  a  year !  and 
what  hope  has  a  man  of  being  able  to  purchase  his  freedom 
by  so  small  gains  as  these  ?     The  sum  of  the  matter  is  this  : 

•  Art-  1462.  f  Louisiana  Code  of  Practice,  art.  103. 

%  4  Defisaussure's  ('hancery  Reports,  266. 
^  1  Cameron  and  Norwood's  Report*,  353. 
10 


182  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

the  slave  himself  is  held  as  the  property  of  his  master,  as 
much  as  his  horse  is,  and  to  all  that  he  earns  his  master  has 
a  legal  title,  as  much  as  he  has  to  the  earnings  of  his  horse. 
How  different  this  from  the  mild  Mosaic  statutes  !  Can  it  be 
believed  that  God  ever  meant  to  sanction  this  enormous 
system  of  wrong  ? 

(4.)  There  is  a  very  material  contrast  between  the  Mosaic 
institutions  and  those  in  our  country  in  regard  to  the  religious 
privileges  allowed  by  law  to  slaves.  In  examining  the  Mosaic 
institutions  in  regard  to  servants,  we  found  {a)  that  they  were 
received  into  covenant  with  God,  and  as  members  of  the 
family  were  recognised  as  in  that  covenant  by  the  customary 
rites  of  religion,  [b)  They  were  guests  at  the  national  and 
family  festivals,  (c)  They  were  statedly  instructed  in  the 
duties  of  morality  and  religion,  [d)  They  might  become 
proselytes  and  be  admitted  to  the  full  privileges  of  religion, 
(c)  In  securing  to  them  the  Sabbath,  and  the  Sabbatical  year, 
and  the  time  for  attending  on  the  great  festivals,  there  was 
ample  time  secured  to  them  by  law  for  the  performance  of  all 
their  rehgious  duties.  Between  these  arrangements  and 
those  existing  in  our  own  country,  we  shall  now  see  there  is 
the  strongest  possible  contrast.  In  illustration  of  this  we  may 
remark,  (1.)  that  the  benefits  of  education  are  withheld  from 
the  slave.  This  is  so  well  known  that  it  is  scarcely  necessary 
to  prove  the  existence  of  the  fact.  It  is  proper,  however,  to 
show  that  it  is  not  the  result  of  custom,  or  neglect  on  the  part 
of  the  master,  but  that  it  is  an  essential  part  of  the  system, 
and  is  ordained  by  law.  This  is  shown  in  a  law  of  South 
Carolina,  passed  in  the  year  1740,  and  before  quoted, 
(pp.  92,  93,)  and  in  the  law  of  Georgia,  there  referred  to. 
In  Virginia  it  is  ordained,  "  That  all  meetings  or  assem- 
blages of  slaves,  or  free  negroes  or  mulattoes  mixing  or 
associating  with  such  slaves  at  any  meeting-house,  or  any 
other  place,  &c.,  in  the  night,  or  at  any  school  or  schools 
for  teaching  them  reading  or  writing,  either  in  the  day 
or  night,  under  whatever  pretext,  shall  be  deemed  and  con- 


S<.^Un>Tl'RAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  183 

sidered  an  unlawful  assembly.'^*  So  in  South  Carolina,  in 
adiiition  lo  the  law  of  1740,  and  in  order  to  make  the  pro- 
hibition more  elil'Ctual,  the  law  was  re-enacted  in  1800,  with 
power  given  to  any  oliiccr,  at  pleasure,  to  disperse  any  such 
a5semblage.  The  magistrates  are  "required"  to  enter  into 
such  places  where  any  "  slaves, //-fc  jics^roes,  mulattoes,  and 
mestizoes  are  met  together  for  the  purpose  o{  mcnfal  instruc- 
//o7J,"  and  to  "  break  the  doors  if  resisted,  and  to  disperse  such 
slaves,"  &c. ;  and  "the  officers  dispersing  such  unlawful 
assemblage  mai/  injlict  such  corporeal  punishmcnty  not 
exceeding  twenty  lashes,  on  such  slaves,  free  negroes,  ^-c, 

AS  THEY  MAY  JUDGE  NECESSARY  FOR  DETERRING  FROM  THE 
LIKE     UNLAWFIL     ASSEMBLAGE     IN    FUTURE."!       BcsidcS    thcSC 

enactments  of  law,  it  should  also  be  said,  that  the  condition 
of  the  slave  is  such  that  he  could  find  little  or  no  time  to  learn 
to  read  and  write,  even  if  the  prohibition  were  not  positive. 
He  is  doomed  to  toil.  "  Hard-worked  and  scantily  fed,  his 
bodily  energies  are  exhausted ;  without  an  instructor  and 
without  books,  he  must  of  necessity  remain  for  ever  ignorant 
of  the  benefits  of  an  education."!  (2.)  The  means  for  moral 
and  religious  instruction  are  not  granted  to  the  slave,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  the  efforts  of  the  charitable  and  humane  to  supply 
these  wants  are  discountenanced  by  law.  There  is  no  arrange- 
ment made  by  law  by  which  the  slave  shall  be  admitted  to  the 
privileges  of  public  worship,  though  in  some  of  the  slates  it  is 
enacted  that  he  may  receive  and  profess  the  Christian  religion, 
and  may  be  baptized,  and  the  whole  matter  of  public  worship 
is  left  at  the  discretion  of  the  master.  The  slave  has  no 
means  of  erecting  a  place  of  worship,  nor  could  he  be  the 
owner  of  the  house  erected,  or  of  the  land  on  which  it  stood, 
or  even  of  the  most  simi)le  communion-service,  or  of  the  Bible 
or  hymn-book  which  might  be  used.  He  has  no  means  of 
supporting  the  gospel ;  he  has  no  Bible  from  which  to  give 

•  1  ReT.  Code,  424,  425.  f  2  Brevard's  Digest,  254,  255. 

i  Stroud,  p.  90. 


184  AX    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

instruction  to  his  children,  if  he  had  the  ability.  Nay,  it  is 
well  known  that  within  a  few  years  there  have  been  positive 
prohibitions  in  many  of  the  slave  states  against  teaching  the 
slave  to  read  the  Bible  at  all,  and  that  this  has  been  made  a 
penal  offence.  If  slaves  have  aiiy  religious  privileges,  they 
are  not,  in  most  of  the  states,  secured  by  law,  but  are  at  the 
discretion  of  their  masters,  and  in  many  of  the  states  the 
dearest  and  most  valuable  of  all  the  rights  and  privileges  con- 
nected with  religion  are  expressly  prohibited  to  them.  A 
reference  to  a  very  few  of  the  enactments  of  the  slave  states 
on  the  subject,  will  show  the  condition  of  the  servant  in  the 
United  States,  in  regard  to  the  most  valuable  privilege  of  man 
— that  of  the  free  worship  of  God.  The  laws  of  Mississippi 
indeed  ordain,  that  "  the  master  or  overseer  may,  in  writing, 
gi'ant  the  slave  permission  to  attend  a  place  of  religious  wor- 
ship at  which  the  minister  may  be  white  and  regularly  or- 
dained or  licensed,  or  at  least  two  discreet  and  respectable 
white  persons,  appointed  by  some  regular  church  or  society, 
shall  attend."*  In  Maryland,  permission  is  given  by  law 
that  the  slave  may  be  baptized,  with  this  proviso,  that  such 
permission  shall  not  be  so  construed  that  the  slave,  in  virtue 
of  his  baptism,  should  be  regarded  as  free.  *'No  negro  or 
negroes,  by  receiving  the  holy  sacrament  of  baptism,  is  there- 
by manumitted  or  set  free,  nor  hath  any  right  or  title  to 
freedom  or  manumission,  more  than  he  or  they  had  before, 
any  law,  usage,  or  custom  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. "t 
In  North  Carolina,  also,  it  is  expressly  enacted  that  a  slave 
may  be  baptized.  "  Be  it  enacted,  that  it  shall  be,  and  it  is 
hereby  declared  lawful,  for  any  negro,  or  Indian  slave,  or  any 
other  slave  or  slaves  whatever,  to  receive  and  profess  the 
Christian  religion,  and  be  thereunto  baptized."  The  same 
proviso  is  added  here  as  in  Maryland,  that  this  shall  not  be 
construed   as  implying  that  the  slave  is  thereby  free.|     In 

•  Rev.  Code,  390.  f  Act  of  1715,  ch.  44,  §  23. 

t  2  Brevard's  Digest,  229. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OK    SLAVKRY.  185 

I^uisiana,  the  law  enacts  that,  "It  shall  be  the  duty  of  every 
owner  lo  procure  for  his  sick  slaves  all  kinds  of  temporal  and 
spiritual  assistance,  which  their  situation  may  require."* 
In  Louisiana  and  Mississippi,  the  law  makes  provision  that 
the  slave  shall  not  be  required  to  labour  on  Sunday.  The 
law  in  Louisiana  is,  **  If  any  person  shall,  on  the  Lord's  day, 
commonly  called  Sunday,  employ  any  slave  in  any  work  or 
labour,  (work  of  absolute  necessity,  and  the  ordinary  occasions 
of  the  family  excepted,)  every  person  so  offending  shall  forfeit 
and  pay  the  sum  of  ten  shillings  for  every  slave  he,  she,  or 
they  shall  so  cause  to  work  or  labour."t  So  in  Mississippi, 
under  a  penalty  of  two  dollars.^  These  are  all  the  arrange- 
ments, it  is  believed,  in  the  slave  states,  for  the  religious  in- 
struction and  privileges  of  the  slaves,  made  by  law.  That  in 
many,  or  most  of  the  stales,  the  slaves  are  permitted  to  attend 
on  public  worship,  occasionally  at  least,  there  can  be  no  doubt; 
and  that  not  a  few  among  them  become  Christians,  it  would 
be  as  improper  to  doubt.  Nor  can  it  be  denied  that  there  are 
not  a  few  kind  and  pious  masters,  who  sincerely  desire  the 
salvation  of  their  slaves,  and  who  are  willing  to  grant  to  them 
all  the  facilities  which  the  circumstances  of  the  case  may 
permit,  to  secure  their  salvation.  But  I  speak  of  the  enact- 
ments of  the  laws  ;  of  the  arrangements  made  by  statute,  and 
of  the  fair  operation  of  the  laws  if  they  were  executed  ac- 
cording to  the  spirit  of  the  enactments.  In  considering  those 
laws,  and  in  estimating  the  actual  privileges  of  slaves  in  re- 
gard to  religion,  we  are  to  bear  in  remembrance  the  following 
things:  (1.)  That  in  case  the  provisions  of  the  few  laws  in 
favour  of  the  slave  are  not  complied  with,  the  slave  has  almost 
no  means  of  redress ;  he  can  never  prosecute  a  white  man, 
or  even  bear  witness  against  him.  (2.)  That  power  is  given 
to  magistrates  and  others  to  break  in  upon  suspicious  assem- 
blages of  coloured  persons,  and  in  such  a  way  that  the  slave 

•  1  Martin's  Digest,  610.  f  Prince's  Digest,  455. 

^  Rev.  Code,  317. 

10* 


186 


AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 


would  have  no  power  of  redress  if  wrong  were  done  to  him. 
(3.)  That  all  night-meetings  are  prohibited.  (4.)  That  the  law 
ordains  that  the  slave  shall  not  be  taught  to  read,  and  of  course 
the  oral  instruction  which  he  can  receive  will  be  of  compara- 
tively httle  benefit  to  him.  (5.)  That  slaves  can  never  have  a 
church  of  their  own,  or  a  pastor  of  their  own,  and  can  never 
feel  that  they  are  in  any  way  a  free  congregation.  (6.)  That 
they  are  a  mere  appendage,  in  most  circumstances,  to  a 
while  congregation,  with  less  advantageous  seats  and  privi- 
leges. (7.)  That  in  most  states  it  is  made  a  penal  offence  to 
teach  them  to  read  the  Bible  ;  and  (8.)  that  in  regard  to  a 
preacher,  they  are  altogether  dependent  on  the  will  of  their 
masters,  who  have  the  power  of  'presentation,^  and  'the 
right  of  patronage,^  in  the  most  absolute  and  odious  form  in 
which  it  has  ever  existed  on  earth.  Let  all  these  things  be 
contrasted  with  the  mild  and  equal  laws  of  Moses  in  regard 
to  the  religious  privileges  of  servants,  and  it  is  not  difficult  to 
answer  the  question  whether  his  institutions  can  be  appealed 
to  in  support  of  slavery  in  the  United  States. 

(5.)  Under  the  Mosaic  statutes  we  found  that  there  was  no 
provision  by  which  a  slave  could  be  sold,  or  transferred  from 
one  master  to  another.  The  effect  of  this,  in  modifying  the 
system  of  slavery,  was  also  fully  considered.  It  is  hardly 
necessary  to  attempt  to  prove  that  in  this  country  directly  the 
reverse  is  true.  The  slave  is  regarded  as  property,  so  far  as 
the  right  of  selling  him  is  concerned,  in  the  same  sense  that 
a  horse  or  a  mule  is  property.  He  may  be  sold,  transmitted 
by  will,  or  alienated  in  any  way.  He  may  be  sold  by  private 
bargain,  or  at  '*  public  outcry  ;"  by  auction  at  the  pleasure  of 
the  master,  or  by  the  sheriff  when  seized  for  debt  in  connec- 
tion with  horses,  sheep,  or  oxen.  He  may  be  sold  irrespective 
of  the  question  to  what  place  he  is  to  be  driven,  or  what  kind 
of  labour  he  is  to  be  employed  in,  or  what  may  be  the  cha- 
racter of  his  new  master.  He  may  be  sold  irrespective  of 
any  question  whether  he  is  a  husband,  or  father,  or  brother ; 
or  any  wishes  which  he  may  have  to  remain  with  those  who 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVKRV.  ]87 

are  doar  to  his  heart.  He  ma}'  be  sold  ref^ardless  of  his  tears 
and  sobs,  as  he  is  about  to  be  separated  from  his  wife  and 
children  for  ever.  Indeed,  in  some  of  the  slave  states,  no 
small  part  of  the  anticipated  profits  of  the  system  result  from 
the  fact  that  the  slave  may  be  sold.  The  only  restrictions 
made  by  law  on  the  fact  that  slaves  may  be  sold  at  pleasure, 
are,  (1.)  the  ordinances  of  certain  states,  as  Delaware,  Mary- 
land, North  and  South  Carolina,  Tennessee,  Kentucky,  Georgia, 
and  Louisiana,  (and  now  of  Misj^issippi,)  prohibiting-,  in  a 
great  degree,  the  farther  introduction  of  slaves  ;*  and  a  law 
in  Louisiana,  by  which  slaves  arc  declared  to  be  real  estate 
there,  and  therefore  ranked  among  immov(d)le  property. 
It  is  also  ordained  in  Louisiana,  that  "  If  at  a  public  sale  of 
slaves,  there  happen  to  be  some  who  are  disabled  through  old 
age  or  otherwise,  and  who  have  children,  such  slaves  shall 
not  be  sold  but  with  his  or  her  children  whom  he  or  she  may 
think  proper  to  go  with  ;"  and  also,  "  Every  person  is  ex- 
pressly prohibited  from  selling  separately  from  their  mothers, 
children  who  shall  not  have  attained  the  full  age  often  years." 
Of  course,  it  follows  from  this,  that  when  children  have  at- 
tained the  age  of  ten  years  they  may  be  separated  from  their 
mothers  at  the  pleasure  of  their  masters.  With  these  excep- 
tions, which  do  not  materially  affect  the  system  of  slavery, 
slaves  may  be  sold  like  any  other  property.  In  fact,  it  is  well 
known  that  nothing  is  more  common,  and  that  the  buying  and 
selling  of  slaves  constitutes  a  regular  species  of  merchandise 
at  the  South  as  much  as  the  buying  and  selling  of  woollens, 
cottons,  and  silks ;  of  horses,  sheep,  and  mules,  in  any  part 
of  the  North.  One  can  scarcely  take  up  a  paper  printed  even 
at  the  seat  of  the  federal  government,  without  finding  nume- 
rous advertisements  for  the  purchase  of  slaves ;  and  Wash- 
ington and  Alexandria  have  long  been  known  to  be  places 
where  this  inhuman  traffic  is  carried  on  in  as  regular  a  busi" 
nes8  manner  as  any  mercantile  transaction  is  conducted  in  any 

•  Stroud,  p.  51. 


188  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

part  of  the  land.  Such  a  traffic  could  never  have  existed  in 
the  Hebrew  commonwealth.  The  whole  spirit  of  its  laws 
and  institutions  would  have  revolted  at  it,  and  a  mart  for  the 
purchase  and  sale  of  slaves  could  not  have  been  tolerated  in 
any  part  of  Palestine  for  a  single  hour. 

(6.)  Under  the  Mosaic  institutions  we  found  an  important 
arrangement  for  the  redemption  of  the  servant,  if  he  or  his 
friends  had  the  means  of  doing  it,  which  the  master  was  not 
at  liberty  to  refuse.  The  law  provided  a  way  by  which  it 
could  be  done.  If  the  servant  could  himself  earn  enough  to 
pay  for  his  freedom,  or  if  certain  of  his  friends  chose  to  inter- 
pose and  purchase  his  liberty,  the  law  made  it  obligatory  on 
his  master  to  release  him.  Lest,  also,  this  provision  should 
be  rendered  a  nuUity  by  an  exorbitant  price  fixed  by  the 
master,  the  law  made  an  express  arrangement  that  the  price 
should  be  equitable.  A  just  valuation  was  to  be  made  of  the 
servant  in  proportion  to  the  proximity  of  the  year  of  jubilee, 
and  the  master  was  bound  to  accept  that  as  the  price  of  his 
release. 

Nothing  like  this,  however,  enters  into  American  laws 
respecting  slavery.  There  is  no  law  compelling  or  requiring 
a  master  to  sell  a  slave  to  himself  or  to  a  friend,  any  more  than 
there  is  requiring  him  to  sell  his  horse,  his  ox,  or  his  hound. 
When  a  husband  and  father  is  from  any  cause  made  free, 
there  is  no  law  by  which  he  can  compel  his  former  master  to 
release  his  own  wife  and  children  at  any  price,  or  for  any 
consideration  whatever.  If  he  proposes  to  buy  them,  and  the 
master  is  disposed  to  sell  them  to  their  own  husband  and 
father,  the  price  is  entirely  at  the  discretion  of  the  master. 
No  matter,  also,  how  cruel  may  be  the  treatment  of  the  slave, 
and  however  much  he  may  desire  a  different  place  of  resi- 
dence, he  has  no  power  to  obtain  a  change  of  masters.  In 
Egypt  and  Arabia,  if  a  slave  is  maltreated,  he  may  appeal  to 
the  magistrate,  and   compel  his  master  to  sell  him.*     But 

•  Burckhardt's  Travels  in  Nubia,  pp.  306,  307. 


SCRirTURAL    Vir.WS    OF    SLAVF.RY.  189 

nothing  of  this  nature  exists  in  the  United  States.  In  Judea, 
under  the  Mosaic  laws,  as  we  have  seen,  if  a  master  in  any 
way  mutilated  a  slave  ;  if  he  merely  deprived  him  of  one  of 
his  teeth,  he  had  a  right  to  liberty.  In  this  country,  how- 
ever, neither  by  wrongs  done  to  hiin  or  his  family,  nor  by 
purchase  by  himself  or  his  friends,  can  the  slave  claim  his 
freedom.  There  exists  no  provision  by  which,  under  any 
circumstances,  he  can  claim  it  as  a  right  guarantied  by  law 
that  his  master  shall  set  him  up  to  be  sold  at  'public  out- 
cry,' or  in  any  other  way.  Should  he  find  a  man  who 
would  be  willing  to  purchase  him  at  any  price,  however 
exorbitant,  there  would  be  no  power  to  compel  his  master  to 
dispose  of  him.  In  all  the  slaveholding  states,  it  is  believed, 
there  is  but  a  single  law  in  which  it  is  ever  made  obligatory 
on  a  master  to  part  with  his  slave,  and  that  law  is  of  such  a 
nature  as  to  be  practically  void.  It  is  found  in  the  new  Civil 
Code  of  the  state  of  Louisiana.  The  law  is  in  these  words  : 
"  No  master  shall  be  compelled  to  sell  his  slave,  but  in  one 
of  two  cases,  to  wit :  first,  where,  being  only  co-proprietor 
of  the  slave,  his  co-proprietor  demands  the  sale,  in  order  to 
make  partition  of  the  property ;  second,  where  the  muster 
shall  be  convicted  of  cruel  treatment  of  the  slave,  and  the 
JUDGE  SHALL  DEEM  IT  PROPER  to  pronoKncc,  besitles  the 
penally  established  for  such  cases,  that  the  slave  shall  be 
sold  at  public  auction,  in  order  to  place  him  out  of  the  reach 
of  the  poiver  which  the  master  has  abused.'' — Art.  192. 
This  law,  however,  must  be  in  almost  all  cases  a  practical  nul- 
lity, for  (1.)  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  by  a  fundamental  law 
of  slaver}%  no  slave  or  coloured  free  person  can  bear  witness 
against  a  white  man  ;  (2.)  it  is  necessary  that  the  master  be 
*  convicted'  of  cruelty — a  thing  so  difficult  "that  it  can  hardly 
be  ranked  among  possibilities ;"  (3.)  it  is,  after  all,  optional 
with  the  judge  whether  he  shall  or  shall  not  make  thtf  decree 
in  favour  of  the  slave.  But  if  in  any  cases  it  should  be  carried 
into  effect,  it  furnishes  no  relief  to  the  system  of  oppression,  for 
(1.)  the  slave  is  not  to  be  made  free  as  the  servant  under  the 


190  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

Jewish  system  was,  when  oppressed  ;  (2.)  there  is  in  this  case 
the  same  view  of  degradation  and  debasement  which  prevails 
everywhere  in  the  notion  of  slavery — that  the  slave  may  be 
sold — sold  "at  auction" — sold  as  property — sold  as  cattle  are; 
and  (3.)  there  is  a  possibility  at  least  that  the  condition  of 
the  slave  would  be  in  nowise  benefited  by  such  a  sale.  He 
would  have  no  security  whatever  that  he  might  not  pass  into 
the  hands  of  a  master  quite  as  cruel  as  his  former  owner  was. 

(7.)  Slaves  in  the  United  States  are  to  be  restored  to  their 
masters,  if  they  endeavour  to  escape.  We  found,  among  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  Mosaic  law,  a  provision  that  the 
slave  was  never  to  be  restored  if  he  attempted  to  do  this.  He 
was  to  find  in  the  land  of  Judea  an  asylum.  The  whole 
power  and  authority  of  the  commonwealth  were  pledged  for 
his  protection.  It  would  never  be  lawful,  even  by  treaty,  to 
make  an  arrangement  by  which  he  could  be  restored.  No 
judge  had  the  right  to  return  him,  and  if  an  attempt  was 
made  by  his  former  master  to  rescue  him,  it  was  contemplated 
that  the  whole  power  of  the  Hebrew  magistmcy  would  be 
asserted  to  secure  his  freedom.  A  practical  invitation,  there- 
fore, was  given  to  the  oppressed  of  all  lands,  to  seek  the 
enjoyment  of  freedom  within  the  limits  of  the  Hebrew  com- 
monwealth. In  examining  the  Mosaic  institutions,  I  showed 
what  must  have  been  the  practical  bearing  of  this  funda- 
mental law  in  regard  to  slavery  there,  and  what  would  be  its 
practical  operation  in  our  own  land. 

The  law  in  our  country  on  this  subject  is  positive,  and  is 
one  of  the  very  few  provisions  for  the  perpetuity  of  slavery 
which  it  was  thought  important  to  incorporate  into  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.  It  is  probably  the  only  thing 
in  the  federal  Constitution  which  comes  in  direct  and  open 
conflict  with  any  law  of  the  Bible,  or  where  a  conscientious 
man  holding  office  would  have  any  doubt  about  his  duty  in 
obeying  the  Constitution  of  his  country.  Here,  however,  the 
provision  is  directly  at  variance  with  the  law  of  God,  and  is 
designed  to  prevent  the  very  thing  which  was  sought  as  a 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKW'S    OF    SLAVKRY.  191 

g-ood  by  the  Mosaic  legis^lation — to  furnish  an  inducement  to 
the  oppressed  to  secure  their  freedom.  The  provision  of  tlie 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  on  this  subject  is  in  ihe  fol- 
lowing words  :  *'  No  person  held  to  service  or  labour  in  one 
state,  under  the  laws  thereof,  escapvig  into  another,  shall,  in 
consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be  discharged 
from  such  service  or  labour,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on 
claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labour  may  be 
due." — Art.  iv.  sect.  ii.  8.  That  slaves  are  here  included, 
there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt,  and  so  the  article  has  always 
been  understood  ;  but  two  things  are  quite  remarkable  on  the 
face  of  the  article.  One  is,  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitu- 
tion carefully,  here  as  elsewhere,  avoided  the  use  of  the  word 
slave;  and  the  other  is,  that  they  as  carefully  avoided  the 
recognition  of  property  in  the  slave.  They  speak  of  the  indi- 
vidual referred  to  as  a  '  person,'  not  as  being  a  chattel  or  thing; 
*ht'id  to  service  or  labour,'  not  as  property.  And  they  say 
that  the  'person'  so  held  'shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim  of 
the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labour  may  be  due,'  not 
that  the  person  so  held  shall  be  delivered  up  to  him  who 
*  owns'  him,  or  who  claims  him  as  ^property.' 

Upon  the  authority,  however,  of  this  provision  of  the  Con- 
stitution, an  act  of  Congress  has  been  passed,  dated  February 
12,  17i)8,  which  is  the  source  of  bitter  anguish  to  its  victims, 
and  which,  in  all  its  details,  is  directly  in  conflict  with  the 
divine  law.  The  law  is  in  these  words :  "When  a  person 
held  to  labour  in  any  of  the  United  Stales,  or  in  either  of  the 
territories  on  the  north-west  or  the  south  of  the  river  Ohio, 
under  the  laws  thereof,  shall  escape  into  any  other  of  the  said 
states  or  territories,  the  person  to  whom  such  labour  or  service 
may  be  due,  his  agent  or  attorney,  is  hereby  empowered  to 
seize  or  arrest  such  fugitive  from  labour,  and  to  take  him  or 
her  before  any  judge  of  the  circuit  or  district  coiirts  of  the 
United  States,  residing  or  being  within  the  slate,  or  before 
any  magistrate  of  a  county,  city,  or  town  corporate,  wherein 
such  seizure  or  arrest  shall  be  made  ;  and  upon  proof  to  the 


192  AN    INQUIRY   INTO   THE 

satisfaction  of  such  judge  or  magistrate,  either  by  oral  testi- 
mony or  affidavit  taken  before  and  certified  by  a  magistrate 
of  any  such  state  or  territory,  that  the  person  so  seized  or 
arrested  doth,  under  the  laws  of  the  state  or  territory  from 
which  he  or  she  fled,  owe  service  or  labour  to  the  person 
claiming  him  or  her,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  such  judge  or 
magistrate  to  give  a  certificate  thereof  to  such  claimant,  his 
agent  or  attorney,  which  shall  be  sufficient  warrant  for 
removing  the  said  fugitive  from  labour  to  the  state  or  terri- 
tory from  which  he  or  she  fled."*  Under  this  provision  of 
the  Constitution,  and  this  law  of  Congress,  escape  from  slavery 
within  the  limits  of  the  United  States,  or  any  of  the  territories 
of  the  United  States,  is  hopeless.  The  arrangement  is  de- 
signed to  secure  this  species  of  'property,'  and  to  render 
freedom  for  the  slave  impossible.  It  is  contemplated  that 
every  magistrate  in  the  land  shall  be  ready  to  lend  his  support 
to  the  institution ;  shall  be  an  ally  of  the  slaveholder  of  the 
South  in  perpetuating  the  system,  and  shall  give  the  sanc- 
tion of  his  name  and  authority  to  the  enforcement  of  a  law 
which  is  directly  at  variance  with  the  law  of  God.  The  law 
of  God  ordains  that  every  man  who  can  secure  his  freedom 
by  escape  from  bondage,  has  a  right  to  it,  and  should  be  pro- 
tected in  that  right ;  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United 
States  suppose  that  he  has  no  such  right,  and  that  all  the 
authority  of  the  civil  arm  is  to  be  employed  in  ri vetting  upon 
him  again  the  fetters  of  bondage.  It  would  be  impossible  to 
conceive  of  laws  more  directly  repugnant  to  each  other,  than, 
in  this  case,  are  the  law  of  God  and  the  law  of  this  Christian 
land. 

(8.)  There  is  no  provision  made  in  this  land  for  gene- 
ral emancipation.  We  found,  in  the  examination  of  the 
Jewish  law,  that  it  was  a  fundamental  provision  there  that 
every  Hebrew  servant  was  to  be  set  at  liberty  at  the  close  of 
the  sixth  year,  and  that  there  was  to  be  a  general  proclama- 

•  IngersoU's  Abridgment,  310. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVERY.  193 

tion  of  freedom  throutrliout  the  land  in  the  year  of  jubilee. 
The  practical  operation  of  this,  it  was  shown,  would  bo  to 
abolish  slavery  altogether,  for  it  was  seen  that  the  system 
could  not  be  perpetuated  under  such  an  arrangement. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  attempt  to  show  that  there  is  no  such 
general  arrangement  in  this  country  for  freedom.  It  has 
never  been  contemplated,  for  it  must  be  seen  at  once  that  it 
would  be  the  destruction  of  the  system.  Let  the  Mosaic  laws 
be  applied  to  slavery  in  this  land,  just  as  they  are  found  in 
the  Pentateuch,  and  in  half  a  century  slavery  in  the  United 
States  would  be  at  an  end.  In  order,  however,  to  see  more 
clearly  that  the  Mosaic  statutes  cannot  be  adduced  in  support 
of  slavery  in  the  United  States,  it  may  not  be  improper  to 
refer  to  a  few  of  the  laws  directly  opposed  to  tliose  sta- 
tutes, or  which  are  designed  to  perpetuate  slavery,  and  to 
prevent  the  possibility  of  emancipation.  In  Georgia,  the 
attempt  to  free  a  slave,  by  any  other  mode  than  by  an  applica- 
tion to  the  legislature,  is  visited  with  severe  penalties,  as  will 
appear  by  the  following  act :  "  If  any  person  or  persons  shall, 
after  the  passing  of  this  act,  (isOl,)  set  free  any  slave  or 
slaves,  in  any  other  manner  and  form  than  the  one  prescribed 
herein,"  (i.  e.  by  special  legislative  act,)  "he  shall  forfeit  for 
every  such  offence  two  hundred  dollars,  to  be  recovered  by 
action  of  debt  or  indictment,  the  one  half  to  be  applied  to  the 
use  of  the  county  in  which  the  offence  may  have  been  com- 
mitted, the  other  half  to  the  use  of  the  informer,  and  the  said 
slave  or  slaves  so  manumitted  and  set  free,  skull  be  alill  to  all 
intents  and  purposes  as  much  in  a  state  of  slavery  as  before 
they  were  manumitted  and  set  free  by  the  party  or  parties  so 
ojffcndingy*  Yet,  as  if  this  enactment  were  not  sufficiently 
strong  to  perpetuate  slavery,  and  to  prevent  the  possibility 
of  freedom  to  the  slave,  Georgia,  by  an  act  of  the  year  lb  18, 
added  the  following  statute  to  her  code  :  "Ail  and  every  will 
and  testament,  deed,  whether  by  way  of  trust  or  otherwise, 

•  Prince's  Digf^st,  457. 
17 


194  AN    INQUIRY   INTO    THE 

contract,  or  agreement,  or  stipulation,  or  other  instrument  in 
writing  or  by  parol,  made  and  executed  for  the  purpose  of 
effecting,  or  endeavouring  to  effect,  the  manumission  of  any 
slave  or  slaves,  either  directly,  by  conferring  or  attempting  to 
confer  freedom  on  such  slave  or  slaves,  or  indirectly  or 
virtually,  by  allowing  and  securing,  or  attempting  to  allow 
and  secure  to  such  slave  or  slaves  the  right  or  privilege  of 
working  for  his,  her,  or  themselves,  free  from  the  control  of 
the  master  or  owner  of  such  slave  or  slaves,  or  of  enjoying 
the  profits  of  his,  her,  or  their  labour  and  skill,  shall  be,  and 
the  same  are  hereby  declared  utterly  null  and  void,  and  the 
person  or  persons  so  making,  &c.,  any  such  deed,  &c.,  and 
all  and  every  person  or  persons  concerned  in  giving  or 
attempting  to  give  effect  thereto,  whether  by  accepting  the 
trust  thereby  created,  or  attempted  to  be  created,  or  in  any 
other  way  or  manner  whatsoever,  shall  be  severally  hable  to 
a  penalty,  not  exceeding  one  thousand  dollars,  to  be  recovered, 
&c.,  and  each  and  every  slave  or  slaves  in  whose  behalf  such 
will  or  testament,  ^-c,  shall  have  been  made,  shall  be  liable 
to  be  arrested  by  warrant  under  the  hand  and  seal  of  any 
magistrate  of  this  state,  and  being  thereof  convicted,  shall 
be  liable  to  be  sold  as  a  slave  or  slaves  by  public  outcry^* 
A  similar  law  exists  in  North  Carolina.  By  an  act  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  that  state,  passed  in  1777,  it  is  ordained, 
"  That  no  negro  or  mulatto  slave  shall  hereafter  be  set  free 
except  for  meritorious  services,  to  be  adjudged  of  and  allowed 
by  the  county  court,  and  license  first  had  and  obtained  there- 
upon ;  and  when  any  slave  is  or  shall  be  set  free  by  his  or  her 
master  or  owner  otherwise  than  is  herein  directed,  it  shall 
and  may  be  lawful  for  any  freeholder  in  this  state  to  appre- 
hend and  take  up  such  slave,  and  deliver  him  or  her  to  the 
sheriff  of  the  county,  who,  upon  receiving  such  slave,  shall 
give  such  freeholder  a  receipt  for  the  same,  and  the  sheriff 
shall  commit  all  such  slaves  to  the  jail  of  the  county,  there  to 

*  Prince's  Digest,  466. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVERY.  195 

remain  until  the  next  court  to  be  held  for  that  county,  and  tho 
court  of  the  county  shall  order  such  confined  slaves  to  be  sold, 
during  the  term,  to  the  highest  bidder."*  In  Mississippi,  it 
is  enacted  that  the  emancipation  of  a  slave  must  be  by  an  in- 
strument of  writing,  a  last  will  or  deed,  under  a  seal  attested 
by  at  least  two  credible  witnesses,  or  acknowledged  in  the 
court  of  the  county  or  corporation  where  the  emancipator  re- 
sides ;  proof  satisfactory  to  the  General  Assembly  must  bo 
adduced  that  the  slave  has  done  some  meritorious  act  fur  the 
benefit  of  his  master,  or  rendered  some  distinguished  service 
to  the  stale,  all  which  circumstances  are  but  prerequisites, 
and  are  of  no  clficacy  until  a  special  act  of  the  Assembly  sanc- 
tions the  emancipation. t 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  there  are  greater  facilities  for 
emancipation  in  Kentucky,  Missouri,  Maryland,  Virginia,  and 
Delaware,  and  perhaps  in  some  of  the  other  slaveholding 
states,  but  it  is  not  necessary  to  specify  the  provisions  parti- 
cularly. In  Kentucky,  it  may  be  done  by  a  proper  record  in 
the  county  court  of  the  will  of  the  master  or  owner  to  emanci- 
pate his  slaves,  "  saving,  however,  the  rights  of  creditors.''^X 

In  reference,  however,  to  the  subject  of  emancipation  in  the 
United  Slates,  as  contrasted  with  the  Mosaic  provisions,  it  may 
be  remarked  in  general,  (1.)  That  there  is  no  provision  or  law 
for  a  general  emancipation  of  all  slaves  as  there  was  among 
the  Hebrews.  (2.)  That  in  some  of  the  states  it  is  entirely 
prohibited  to  the  owner  to  emancipate  his  own  slaves,  and  it 
can  take  place  only  by  a  special  act  of  the  legislature. 
(:3.)  That  in  some  of  the  states  it  can  never  occur  unless  the 
emancij)ated  slave  shall  be  removed  from  the  limits  of  the 
state.  (4.)  That  in  all  cases  where  it  may  be  done,  it  depends 
on  the  will  of  the  master,  and  there  is  no  provision  of  law  to 
compel  him  to  do  it ;  and  (5.)  That  all  the  considerations  of 
interest,  and  custom,  and  law,  and  all  the  circumstantial  pro- 

•  Haywood'b  Maiiual,  r)25.  f  MiKfli8Hi|)pi  Kcv.  Code,  385,  386. 

4  «  LiU.  «Sc  ?5wi.  110 J. 


196  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

cesses  of  law  in  order  to  secure  emancipation  in  any  case — 
the  necessity  of  witnesses,  and  in  many  oases  of  legislative 
enactments — go  to  prevent  emancipation  at  all.  To  this  may 
be  added  all  the  severe  enactments  in  the  slave  states  against 
foreign  interference  to  persuade  the  masters  to  emancipate 
their  slaves  ;  all  the  obstructions  thrown  in  the  way  of  making 
an  appeal  to  the  masters  through  the  mails ;  all  the  excite- 
ments against  th6se  who  are  suspected  of  being  abolitionists ; 
all  the  operations  of  Lynch  law  ;  all  the  public  denunciations 
against  foreign  interference  in  the  case  ;  all  the  appointments 
of  committees  of  vigilance,  and  all  the  precautions  against  the 
possible  escape  of  those  held  as  slaves.  *dll  the  arrangements 
of  law  which  are  made  in  the  slave  states,  are  designed  to  per- 
petuate slavery,  not  to  bring  it  to  an  end ;  all  those  in  the 
Mosaic  statutes  were  intended  to  modify  the  system,  and  ulti- 
mately to  abolish  it.  Under  the  Mosaic  system,  slavery 
coiild  be,  and  would  be,  by  the  regular  operation  of  the 
laws,  abolished.  Here,  there  is  no  tendency  in  the  laws  to 
its  abolition,  but  under  any  existing  or  prospective  arrange- 
ment, it  would  continue  for  ever. 

I  have  thus  gone  over,  at  considerable  length,  the  laws  of 
Moses  in  regard  to  servitude,  and  have  placed  those  laws  in 
contrast  with  those  which  exist  in  our  own  land.  On  this  part  of 
my  subject,  therefore,  it  only  remains  to  ask,  what  sanction  the 
Mosaic  laws  give  to  servitude  as  it  exists  in  the  United  States  ? 
Scarcely  any  two  systems  could  possibly  be  more  directly  in 
contrast,  and  how  can  it  then  be  inferred  that  the  Mosaic  en- 
actments are  either  proofs  that  Moses  regarded  slavery  as 
desirable  in  order  to  promote  the  best  interests  of  society,  or 
that  his  institutions  give  a  sanction  to  it  as  it  exists  in  the 
United  States  ?  The  sanction  of  Moses  could  be  adduced 
only  in  favour  of  the  system  which  he  established,  and  not  in 
favour  of  one  which  has  scarcely  a  feature  in  common  with 
his.  The  operation  of  his  laws  was  to  modify  a  system  which 
he  found  in  existence,  and  which  could  not  at  once  be  extir- 
pated ;  to  soften  all  its  hard  features ;  to  bring  it  as  far  as 


SCRIPTURAL    VIi:WS    OF    SLAVKRY.  197 

possible  into  conformity  with  llie  privileges  of  freedom,  and 
as  soon  as  practicable  to  abolish  it  altogether.  The  ope- 
ration of  the  system  here  is  to  rivet  the  fetters  of  the  slave  ; 
lo  deny  to  him  all  the  privileges  and  rights  of  an  intellectual 
and  a  moral  being,  and  to  perpetuate  the  system  for  ever.  The 
application  of  the  laws  of  Moses  to  this  country  would  make 
servitude  at  once  a  mild  and  gentle  institution,  and  would 
abolish  it  wholly  in  half  a  century ;  the  regular  operation  of 
the  laws  now  existing  here  would  perpetuate  it  for  ever. 
Here  are  no  laws  (l€sig:ned  to  modify  and  meliorate  the  sys- 
tem ;  there  are  none  which  contemplate  emancipation.  Of 
all  the  abuses  ever  applied  to  the  Scriptures,  the  most  intol- 
erable and  monstrous  are  those  which  pervert  them  to  the 
support  of  American  slavery.  Sad  is  it,  that  the  mild  and 
benignant  enactments  of  the  Hebrew  legislator  should  ever 
be  appealed  to,  to  sanction  the  wrongs  and  outrages  of  the 
poor  African  in  "this  land  of  freedom;"  sad,  that  the  ministers 
of  religion  should  ever  prostitute  their  high  ofiice  to  give 
countenance  to  such  a  system,  by  maintaining  or  even  con- 
ceding for  a  moment  that  the  Mosaic  laws  sanction  the  op- 
pressions and  wrongs  existing  in  the  United  States.  "  / 
tremble,''  said  Jefferson,  "  when  I  remember  that  God  is 
just,  for  God  has  no  attributes  which  can  take  part  with  us 
in  relation  to  this  matter." 

In  rerrard  to  the  laws  existing  in  the  United  States  respect- 
ing slavery,  as  contrasted  with  those  of  the  Mosaic  institutions, 
there  are  a  few  additional  remarks  which  it  seems  proper  to 
make  in  this  place. 

(1.)  I  have  not  copied  them  with  any  intention  of  exciting 
odium  against  slaveholders,  or  of  holding  the  framers  of  those 
laws  up  lo  reproach.  It  would  have  been  desirable  to  have 
avoided  all  reference  lo  them  if  possible,  and  to  have  suffered 
ihem  to  remain  scattered  as  they  are  through  the  law  books 
of  many  slates,  and  intermingled  with  other  laws,  so  that  they 
should  not  be  presented  under  the  disadvantage  of  being 
placed  side  by  side.     But  it  seemed  indispensable  that  in 


198  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

comparing  the  system  of  servitude  under  the  Mosaic  insti- 
tutions with  that  in  the  United  States,  Avith  reference  to  the 
question  whether  the  one  sanctions  the  other,  to  compare  the 
laws  in  the  two  institutions.  I  have  endeavoured  to  do  justice 
to  the  Mosaic  institutions  in  this  respect  by  bringing  together 
all  the  laws  which  he  enacted,  and,  though  I  have  not  copied 
all  the  laws  of  the  slaveholding  states  on  the  subject,  yet  it 
seemed  to  be  but  a  mere  act  of  justice  that  the  principal 
enactments  should  be  referred  to. 

(2.)  It  mny  be  admitted  that  these  laws  in  the  Southern 
states  are  not  always  enforced,  and  that  in  some  respects 
many  of  them  become  in  fact  a  dead  letter.  I  am  happy  in 
the  belief  that  it  is  so ;  and  I  admit  that  it  is  not  a  fair  way 
of  judging  of  the  system  to  suppose  that  these  laws  are 
always  rigidly  enforced.  There  is  no  doubt  that  in  many 
places  almost  none  of  them  are.*  Uniform  testimony  goes  to 
show  that  in  not  a  few  places  slaves  appear  to  be  contented, 
cheerful,  and  happy ;  that  many  masters  are  kind  and  truly 
pious  ;  that  on  many  plantations  great  pains  are  taken  to  teach 
the  slave  to  read  the  Bible,  and  to  instruct  him  in  the  princi- 
ples of  religion  ;  that  not  a  few  slaves  give  evidence  that  they 
are  true  Christians ;  and  that  multitudes  of  them,  in  such 
circumstances,  may  pass  their  whole  lives  and  never  feel  the 
weight  of  the  terrific  enactments  which  hang  over  them,  or 
even  know  of  their  actual  existence.  It  is  not  always  fair, 
I  admit,  to  judge  of  the  actual  condition  of  a  people  by  what 
we  find  in  a  statute  book.  Laws  become  obsolete.  Customs 
and  habits  change.  The  severe  enactment  dies  away  without 
a  formal  repeal.  There  is  no  necessity,  under  the  advancing 
state  of  society,  to  put  it  in  execution,  and  it  is  forgotten.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  it  would  be  possible  to  make  quite  a  formi- 
dable representation  of  the  state  of  things  in  England  by  merely 
copying  the  unrepealed  laws  in  the  statute  book,  and  that  by 

*  Compare  on  this  point  Dr.  Fuller  on  Slavery,  Letters  to  Dr.  Wayland, 
pp.  159,  160. 


SCRIPTUIL\L    \1E\VS    OF    SLAVERY.  199 

such  a  process  an  idea  mig:ht  be  conveyed  of  the  state  of 
society  there  to  which  there  is  nothin<T  corresponding  in  fact. 
The  laws  have  become  obsolete,  thoug^h  they  are  not  repealed  ; 
and  a  true  judgment  of  the  state  of  society  there  is  to  be 
fonned,  not  by  an  abstract  study  of  the  law  books  in  a  distant 
land,  but  by  a  close  observation  of  the  actual  workings  of 
society.  I  have  no  doubt  that  injustice  is  often  done  to  the 
southern  states  of  this  Union  by  just  this  process — as  beyond 
all  question  injustice  is  done  by  collecting  all  the  advertise- 
ments of  runaway  slaves ;  and  all  the  notices  of  their  marks 
and  brands ;  and  all  the  accounts  of  isolated  acts  of  cruelty  and 
severity  ;  and  all  the  instances  of  the  whippinsf,  the  imprison- 
ment, and  the  shooting  down  of  slaves,  and.  by  publishing 
them  as  if  that  were  a  fair  representation  of  the  ordinary 
operations  of  "slavery  as  it  is."  Every  one  of  those  indivi- 
dual instances  may  have  occurred — perhaps  hundreds  of  miles 
apart — but  to  collect  them  in  a  volume  does  no  more  justice 
to  society  there  than  would  be  done  by  collecting  all  the  cases 
of  rape,  and  riot,  and  burglary,  and  murder,  and  arson  from 
the  records  of  the  courts  at  the  North,  and  publishing  them  in 
a  volume  in  order  to  give  to  a  stranger  a  just  representation 
of  society  here.  I  should  be  sorry,  therefore,  if  by  copying 
the  laws  of  the  Southern  stales  as  contrasted  with  those  of 
Moses,  I  should  do  any  thing  to  extend  or  perpetuate  this 
injustice,  or  lead  any  to  suppose  that  these  laws  arc  always 
executed,  or  that  the  state  of  society  is  to  be  inferred  from  the 
supposition  that  they  are  always  executed,  and  that  there  is  in 
fact  nothing  at  the  South  of  which  these  laws  may  not  be 
regarded  as  the  fair  exponent. 

(ii.)  It  should  be  said,  however,  that  while  those  laws  exist 
unrepealed,  they  may  be  put  into  execution,  and  that  the  slave 
under  them  is  liable  to  suffer  all  the  oppression  and  wrong 
which  they  appear  to  justify.  It  is  no  uncommon  thing  for  a 
man  to  be  made  to  sufi'er  under  the  operation  of  an  obsolete 
statute  of  which  he  had  no  knowledge,  and  the  remembrance 
of  which  is  revived  for  the  very  purpose  of  doing  hira  in- 


200  AN    INQUIRY   INTO    THE 

justice.  Whether  these  laws  at  the  South  shall  or  shall  not 
be  executed  in  their  severity,  depends  on  the  state  of  the  pub- 
lic mind,  on  the  passions  that  may  prevail  in  any  community, 
and  on  the  will  and  caprice  of  particular  masters.  This  is  a 
point  over  which  the  slave  has  no  control,  and  in  which  the 
benevolent  who  might  wish  a  better  state  of  things,  and  might 
shudder  at  the  wrong  done,  have  no  power.  Any  or  all  of 
these  grievous  wrongs  may  be  perpetrated  by  a  cruel  master, 
and  he  will  be  sustained  by  the  sanction  of  the  laws ;  and  in 
order  to  a  fair  judgment  respecting  a  community,  Ave  are  to 
take  into  the  account  not  only  what  is  done,  but  what  may  be 
done  under  the  sanction  of  law. 

(4.)  These  laws  are  a  fair  expression  of  the  nature  of  the 
system  of  slavery  in  its  essential  character.  They  are  what 
the  system  has  produced.  They  have  grown  out  of  it,  as 
being  supposed  to  be  necessary  to  the  best  working  of  the 
system,  and  to  its  perpetuity.  They  are  the  result  of  long 
and  careful  legislation,  in  a  country  that  boasts  of  being  the 
most  enhghtened  in  the  world.  They  are  in  most  instances 
the  result  of  experience,  and  are  what  has  been  found  by 
experience  to  be  necessary  to  the  perfection  of  the  system. 
They  are  what  the  lawgivers  at  the  South  have  supposed  to 
be  requisite  in  order  that  the  institution  may  be  perpetuated 
in  this  country,  and  are  an  exponent  of  w^hat  the  master  deems 
to  be  necessary  in  order  that  his  right  to  this  species  of  '  pro- 
perty' may  be  best  secured.  For  illustration,  it  would  be 
fair  to  refer  to  the  laws  of  Pennsylvania  respecting  the  right 
of  the  owners  of  various  kinds  of  property,  and  the  ways  by 
which  they  may  secure  themselves  from  wrong,  as  a  proof 
of  what  has  been  found  necessary  in  that  commonwealth  to 
promote  in  the  best  manner  the  security  of  society.  Those 
laws  are  the  results  of  long  experience  in  the  case,  just  as  the 
laws  of  the  South  are  the  results  of  long  experience  of  the 
best  methods  of  perpetuating  slavery.  They  may  be  referred 
to,  therefore,  as  the  fair  exponent  of  the  nature  of  the  system. 

(5.)  Those  laws  are  necessary  to  the  system.     They  are 


SCRIPTURAL    \1EWS    OF    SLAVERY.  201 

the  shield  which  protects  it.  They  could  not  be  repealed 
with  safety.  The  si/steni  of  slave  laws  as  such  could  not  be 
safi'ly  modified.  The  repeal  of  any  of  those  enactments, 
harsli  and  severe  as  they  seem  to  be,  would  be  dointr  so 
much  to  endanger  the  system.  To  abolish  them,  and  to 
introduce  the  great  features  of  the  Mosaic  code,  would  be 
to  peril  the  system  at  once.  No  essential  modification  of 
those  laws  for  the  better  has  been  made  in  all  the  legislation 
on  the  subj«>ct,  and  the  question  is  never  aoilated  at  the  South 
whether  the  *'  negro  code"  could  be  meliorated  consistently 
with  the  perpetuity  of  slavery.  No  proposition  could  be 
entertained  suggesting  tliat  the  laws  should  be  so  modified 
that  the  slave  should  be  taught  to  read ;  that  he  should 
be  allowed  entire  freedom  to  worship  God ;  that  he  should 
be  permitted  to  testify  against  a  while  man  ;  that  he  should 
be  considered  as  the  owner  of  property ;  that  the  marriage 
contract  should  be  inviolate;  that  he  should  be  allowed  to 
control  his  children,  or  that,  if  he  escaped,  he  should  not  be 
returned  by  force  to  his  master.  Any  relaxation  of  the  system 
at  all,  bordering  on  such  modifications,  would  be  repelled  as 
tending  to  abolition,  and  the  nearer  such  modifications  should 
come  to  the  Mosaic  statutes,  the  more  would  that  danger  T)e 
felt.  It  is  not  unfair,  therefore,  to  refer  to  these  laws  as  illus- 
trating the  working  of  the  system  of  American  slavery,  or  as 
showing  WHAT  it  is. 

(0.)  If  the  system  of  slavery,  as  it  exists  in  this  country,  is 
right,  or  if  slavery  itself  is  right  in  any  proper  sense  of  the 
term,  then  these  laws  growing  out  of  the  system,  and  neces- 
sary t^  its  continuance,  are  also  right.  If  the  master  possess 
the  right  which  is  claimed  over  a  slave — a  right  to  oblige  him 
to  labour  for  his  benefit  without  his  consent ;  a  right  to  his 
time  and  to  the  avails  of  his  labour  and  skill ;  a  right  to  dis- 
pose of  that  time  and  skill,  and  to  sell  the  slave  himself,  then 
he  "  enjoys  also  a  right  to  use  all  the  means  necessary  both  to 
enforce  it  and  to  render  it  permanent.  He  has  a  right  to 
protect  himself  against  every  thing  that  would  interfere  with  the 


202  AN    INQUIRY    INTO   THE 

exercise  of  this  right.  If  the  intellectual  and  moral  cultiva- 
tion of  the  slave  would  interfere  with  the  master's  power  to 
enforce  this  right,  he  has  the  right  to  arrest  this  cultivation  at 
any  point  he  chooses,  or  to  abolish  it  altogether.  If  the  right 
exist,  therefore,  no  exception  can  be  taken  to  the  sternest 
laws  which  have  ever  been  enacted  in  any  of  the  Southern 
states,  even  though  they  prohibit,  under  the  severest  penal- 
ties, the  education  of  negroes,  and  forbid  them  to  assemble  for 
the  worship  of  God,  except  under  the  strictest  surveillance."* 
To  these  views  of  Dr.  Wayland,  no  exception,  it  seems  to  me, 
can  be  taken,  and  if  they  are  correct,  then  it  is  clear  that  it  is 
proper  to  place  the  existing  laws  in  the  slave  states  in  contrast 
with  those  of  Moses,  as  illustrating  the  question  whether 
American  slavery  has  the  sanction  of  the  Bible. 

*  Dr.  Wayland's  Letters  to  Dr.  Fuller,  p.  23. 


SCRirTUIL\L    VIEWS    OF    SLAVERY.  203 


CHAPTER  VI." 

Hebrew  Servitude  in  the  time  of  the  I\ophcts. 

In  the  previous  chapters,  I  have  gone  into  an  extended 
examination  of  the  subject  of  slavery  or  servitude  as  it  ex- 
isted among  the  Hebrew  patriarchs,  and  under  the  Mosaic 
arrangements.  The  general  conclusion  which  has  been 
reached  in  this  investigation  is,  that  while  slavery  existed  in 
the  patriarchal  times,  and  while  the  laws  of  Moses  contem- 
plated the  possibility  of  its  existence,  just  as  they  did  of 
polygamy  and  divorce,  yet  that,  so  far  as  the  Mosaic  code 
tolerated  it,  it  was  comparativi'ly  a  mild  system,  and  one 
which  it  was  the  tendency  of  his  institutions  ultimately  to 
abohsh.  He  found  it  in  existence,  aiid  could  abolish  it 
only  by  mild,  but  determined  legislation.  He  made  servi- 
tude under  his  code  a  different  thing  from  what  it  was  in 
surrounding  nations.  He  made  it  a  desirable  thing  for  a 
slave  elsewhere  to  place  himself  under  his  laws.  He  pro- 
tected him  there,  and  made  it  certain  that,  when  once  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  his  laws,  he  could  never  be  returned 
again  to  his  former  master.  He  elevated  the  slave  to 
many  of  the  rights  of  a  man ;  regarded  him  as  a  man,  a 
moral  agent,  a  religious  being ;  gave  him  an  opportunity 
of  acquiring  the  knowledge  of  the  true  religion ;  allowed 
him  time  for  the  improvement  of  his  mind,  and  for  the  acqui- 
sition of  property  ;  fitted  him  to  be  a  freeman,  and  made 
arrangements  which  were  incorporated  in  the  very  constitu- 
tion of  the  commonwealth,  that  at  certain  periods,  not  far  dis- 
tant from  each  other,  the  whole  land  should  be  free  from 
every  vestige  of  slaver}'.  The  Mosaic  institutions  were  thus 
evidently  opposed  to  the  system,  and  contemplated  its  ultimate 


204  AN   INQUIRY   INTO    THE 

entire  abolition,  in  strong  contrast,  as  we  have  seen,  with  the 
institutions  of  our  own  country,  which  contemplate  its  un- 
mitigated perpetuity. 

A  very  important  question  presents  itself  in  regard  to  the 
working  of  the  Mosaic  system,  and  on  this  inquiry  I  now 
enter.  The  inquiry  extends  from  the  period  of  the  close  of 
the  Mosaic  code,  or  the  death  of  Moses,  to  the  winding  up  of 
the  Hebrew  institutions — the  coming  of  the  Messiah.  So  far 
as  this  subject  is  concerned,  this  may  be  regarded  as  one 
period — whether  under  the  judges  or  the  kings  ;  whether  the 
nation  was  itself  free,  or  whether  it  was  in  bondage.  The 
inq^iiry  is,  what  was  the  operation  of  the  Mosaic  laws  respect- 
innf  servitude  ?  Was  it  refnirded  as  consistent  with  the 
spirit  of  those  laws  ?  Was  the  Hebrew  nation  a  nation  of 
slaveholders  ?  If  slavery  existed  at  any  time,  what  was  its 
character?  Did  the  prophets  approve  and  commend  it? 
And  was  it  a  fact  that  under  the  operation  of  that  system, 
the  Saviour  found  slavery  prevalent  at  the  time  of  his  ap- 
pearing ? 

There  is  some  difficulty  in  arriving  at  exact  views  on  this 
point,  arising  from  the  indefinite  meaning  of  the  word  servant^ 
and  the  words  relating  to  servitude^  in  the  Scriptures.  That 
there  were  servants  in  the  times  of  the  prophets,  and  through 
the  entire  period  now  under  consideration,  no  one  can  doubt. 
Any  one  by  opening  a  Hebrew,  a  Greek,  or  an  English  Con- 
cordance, will  find  that  the  words  "l^^  ebedh—^ov\oi  doidos — 
and  servant,  occur  almost  numberless  times,  though  they 
are  used  in  a  great  variety  of  senses.  It  is  necessary,  there- 
fore, to  bear  in  mind  that  the  use  of  these  words  does  not 
demonstrate  that  slavery  existed  in  any  proper  form.  The 
incpiry  is  not  into  the  use  of  the  word,  but  into  the  things 
and  in  order  to  this  it  is  necessary  to  keep  in  constant  re- 
membrance what  slavery  is.  The  meaning  of  the  word  ren- 
dered servant  in  the  Old  Testament  has  been  the  subject  of 
previous  examination,  (Chapter  III.)  and  the  results  of  this 
examination  should  be  borne  in  mind  in  the  inquiry  on  which 


SCRIPTUILU.    VIEWS   OF    SLAVERY.  205 

we  now  enter.  The  result  of  the  examination,  in  substance, 
was,  that  the  words  used  to  denote  servitude  in  the  Scriptures, 
do  not  necessarily  denote  slavcri/  in  the  proper  sense  of  the 
term,  or  in  the  sense  now  under  imjuiry,  and  that  the  mere 
use  of  those  terms  determines  nothinnr  in  the  issue  before  us. 
It  neither  proves  that  slavery  existed  then,  nor  that  it  is  lawful, 
any  more  than  the  word  servant  in  England,  or  in  the  states 
north  of  Mason's  and  Dixon's  line,  proves  that  slavery  exists 
there,  or  is  rec^irded  as  riixht.  We  are  to  remember  what 
constitutes  the  thiiig^  (Sec  Chap.  II.)  and  to  inquire  whether 
there  is  evidence  that  that  existed,  and  how  it  was  regarded 
in  the  period  under  consideration. 

If  the  view  which  has  been  taken  of  the  Mosaic  law  be 
correct,  we  shall  expect  to  find  in  the  Hebrew  commonwealth, 
that,  if  slavery  existed  at  all,  it  was  in  a  mild  form.  We 
shall  expect  to  find  that  the  Hebrews  did  not  engage  in  the 
slave-trade  or  tralTic.  We  shall  expect  to  find  that  all  cruelty 
was  rebuked,  and  that  the  slave  gradually  rose  in  the  public 
estimation,  and  was  elevated  nearer  to  the  condition  of  a  free- 
man. We  shall  expect  to  find  that  the  institution  gradually 
disappeared ;  that  it  was  regarded  as  so  contrary  to  the  whole 
spirit  of  the  Mosaic  laws,  that  it  finally  ceased  to  be  known  in 
the  nation.  These  are  the  fair  and  reasonable  expectations 
which  we  should  form  from  the  examination  of  the  subject 
which  we  have  gone  over;  and  if  this  should  be  found  jwt 
to  be  the  result,  it  would  do  much  to  make  us  doubt  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  conclusions  to  which  we  have  come  respecting 
the  nature  of  the  Mosaic  arrangements.  The  inquiry  now  is, 
what  were  the  facts  in  the  case  as  developed  in  their  history  ? 
This  inquiry  will  embrace  the  following  points  : — The  treat- 
ment of  the  native  inliabitants  of  the  land  of  Canaan  ;  the 
foreign  traffic  of  the  nation,  and  the  question  whether  dealing 
in  slaves  constituted  a  part  of  that  traffic  ;  how  it  was  re- 
^rded  and  treated  by  the  prophets ;  and  whether  slavery 
continued  to  exist  among  the  Hebrew  people,  or  was  finally 
abolished. 

18 


206  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE  '      ' 

I.  The  inquiry  in  regard  to  the  condition  of  the  native 
inhabitants  of  the  land  of  Palestine.  I  begin  with  this, 
because  there  is  allusion  to  them  in  the  sacred  writings  in 
such  a  way  as  to  illustrate  this  subject ;  and  because,  if  the 
Mosaic  institutions  had  contemplated  slavery  as  a  desirable 
thing,  and  as  a  permanent  arrangement,  nothing  would  have 
been  more  natural  than  that  whole  people  should  have  been 
reduced  to  permanent  servitude. 

To  such  a  course  there  were  strong  inducements.  They 
might  be  regarded  as  captives  taken  in  war,  and  it  was  the 
ancient  law  that  such  captives  were  regarded  as  slaves. 
They  were  an  abandoned  race — a  race  devoted  to  destruc- 
tion. None  of  them  were  regarded  as  the  proper  objects  of 
mercy ;  none  were  to  be  considered  as  entitled  to  any  privi- 
leges of  citizenship,  nor  were  they  to  become  citizens  of  the 
Hebrew  republic.  Ex.  xxxiv.  11 — 13;  Numb,  xxxiii.  51 — 
56  ;  Deut.  vii.  1 — 5.  Yet,  if  their  institutions  contemplated 
slavery,  and  it  was  designed  that  slavery  should  enter  into 
the  permanent  arrangements  of  the  commonwealth,  what 
would  have  been  more  natural  than  to  have  doomed  that 
race  to  servitude?  Where  could  any  class  of  men  have  been 
found  more  fitted  for  it,  or  against  v^-hose  subjugation  to  hope- 
less bondage  fewer  objections  could  have  been  raised?  In 
the  view  of  the  law  of  God,  as  promulgated  by  Moses,  they 
had  forfeited  all  claim  to  life  or  mercy.  They  might  justly 
be  driven  from  their  land,  or  devoted  to  destruction.  Yet  it 
would  seem  to  be  a  milder  and  more  compassionate  treat- 
ment to  make  them  slaves  ;  to  permit  them  to  live,  and  to 
give  them  the  opportunity  of  becoming  ultimately  incorpo- 
rated among  the  Hebrew  people.  This  thought  -would  cer- 
tainly occur  to  the  Hebrews  themselves,  if  they  had  sup- 
posed that  slavery  was  to  be  a  part  of  their  political  arrange- 
ments ;  and  if  God  had  designed  that  it  should  enter  into  that 
system  permanently,  it  is  inconceivable  why  he  did  not  at 
once  point  them  to  that  people  as  a  race  that  would  supply 
them  with  all  the  slaves  that  they  needed. 


SCRIPTL-RAL    MEWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  207 

Nothing,  moreover,  would  have  been  more  natural  than 
this  course,  if  they  had  recalled  one  of  the  ancient  predictions 
respecting  a  portion  of  this  })eople — the  malediction  of  Noah. 
Gen.  ix.  25.  "Cursed  be  Canaan;  a  servant  of  servants 
shall  he  be  unto  his  brethren."  This  passage,  by  a  singular 
pcrverseness  of  interpretation,  and  a  singular  perseverance  in 
that  perverseness  notwithstanding  the  plainest  rules  of 
exegesis,  is  often  employed  to  justify  the  reduction  of  the 
African  to  slavery,  because  Ham,  the  father  of  Canaan, 
peopled  Africa.  Nothing  can  be  clearer,  however,  than  that 
if  a  Hebrew  had  ever  thought  of  employing  this  passage  to 
justify  slavery,  it  would  not  have  been  applied  by  him  to  the 
•African,  but  to  the  Canaanite.  It  was  Canaan  and  not  Ham 
that  was  specified ;  and  whatever  there  was  in  the  passage, 
whether  of  prophecy  or  malediction,  that  could  be  interpreted 
in  favour  of  the  right  of  subjecting  any  one  to  servitude,  a 
Hebrew  would  have  applied  it  only  to  the  Canaanite.  The 
plea  would  have  been  plausible,  that  by  an  ancient  prediction 
it  was  foretold  that  the  Canaanite  should  be  a  slave ;  that  th© 
curse  of  the  patriarch  Noah,  specifying  Canaan  by  name, 
would  make  such  subjection  proper ;  and  that  it  was  in 
accordance  with  this  ancient  prediction  that  arrangements 
were  now  made  by  which  he  should  be  reduced  to  bondage. 
A  far  more  plausible  argument  could  have  been  derived  from 
this  apphcation  of  the  passage  in  favour  of  fastening  the  chains 
of  servitude  on  the  Canaanite,  than  has  ever  been  urged  in 
modern  times  from  it  in  favour  of  the  subjection  of  the  African 
to  bondage. 

Yet  this  application  of  the  prophecy,  so  far  as  we  know, 
was  never  made,  nor  did  these  plausible  considerations  in 
favour  of  subjecting  the  inhabitants  of  Palestine  to  slavery, 
ever  occur  to  the  mind  of  the  Hebrew  conquerors.  No 
arrangements  were  made  to  kidnap  them ;  no  permission  was 
given  by  Moses  or  Joshua  to  the  victors  to  hold  those  taken  in 
arms  as  slaves;  nor  was  a  slave-mart  opened  in  which  the 
captives  were  exposed  to  sale.     Tin. re   is  not  the  slightest 


208  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

evidence  that  one  of  them  was  held  as  a  slave,  or  was  ever 
sold  or  offered  for  sale  as  a  slave.  They  were  not  even 
attached  as  serfs  or  villeins  to  the  soil,  nor  were  they  exported 
to  be  sold  in  a  foreign  market. 

There  are  two  occurrences  referred  to  in  their  history 
which  are  decisive  on  this  point,  and  which  prove  that  not 
even  the  survivors  of  those  tribes  were  regarded  as  slaves. 
The  first  is,  the  fact  that  a  few  of  the  inhabitants  of  Canaan, 
from  the  fear  of  death,  became,  by  art  and  duplicity,  voluntary 
servants  to  the  Hebrews.  I  refer  to  the  case  of  the  Gibeonites. 
Josh.  ix.  They  came  to  Joshua  with  the  representation  that 
they  had  travelled  a  great  distance,  and  in  such  raiment  as  to 
appear  as  if  they  had  come  from  afar.  They  stated  to  him 
and  the  elders,  that  they  had  heard  of  all  that  had  been  done 
by  the  Hebrews  in  their  conquests,  and  they  came  to  enter 
into  a  league  of  peace.  The  artifice  succeeded,  and  the 
request  was  granted,  and  a  solemn  compact  was  entered  into 
between  them  and  the  leaders  of  the  Jewish  host.  Soon  the 
deception  was  found  out,  (ver.  16,)  and  it  became  a  serious 
question  what  course  was  to  be  pursued  in  regard  to  them. 
The  command  to  destroy  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  land  was 
positive ;  the  fact  of  fraud  in  this  case  was  undoubted ;  and 
yet  a  solemn  league  had  been  made  with  them,  and  the  faith, 
of  the  nation  pledged  that  they  should  be  spared.  The  matter 
was  compromised,  and  the  honour  of  the  nation  secured ; 
since  by  the  compact  they  were  regarded  as  '  bondmen ;' 
(literally  '  servitude  n^i;  shall  not  be  cut  off  from  you ;'  see 
the  margin ;)  and  they  were  made  "  hewers  of  wood  and 
drawers  of  water"  'for  the  house  of  God.'  They  were  em- 
ployed in  the  service  of  the  "  congregation  and  of  the  altar," 
(ver.  27,)  and  were  continued  in  this  menial  occupation. 
Yet  there  is  no  evidence  that  they  were  reduced  to  slavery, 
properly  so  called.  They  were  not  held  as  property.  They 
were  not  bought  and  sold,  nor  does  it  appear  that  the  obliga- 
tion to  servitude  descended  to  their  children.  They  were 
held  in  subjection,  and  were  employed  to  perform  the  more 


SCRIPTURAL    Vli:\VS    OV    SLAVKRY.  209 

lal)orious  duties  connected  with  the  public  services  of  the 
sanctuary.  Undoubtedly  they  were  regarded  as  menials,  and 
were  probably  subjected  to  much  indignity  and  contempt,  but 
the  essential  features  of  slavery  were  wanting  in  their  case. 
They  had  voluntarily  put  themselves  in  this  position.  They 
obtained  what  they  asked,  and  though  it  was  a  laborious  and 
debased  condition,  yet  they  preferred  it  to  death.  No  argu- 
ment can  be  derived  from  this  in  favour  of  the  supposition 
that  the  Hebrews  designed  to  perpetuate  the  institution  of 
Slavery. 

The  other  occurrence  referred  to  in  their  history,  which 
may  illustrate  the  subject,  is  one  that  took  place  in  the  time 
of  Solomon.  Upon  the  remnant  of  that  people  in  the  land, 
who  it  would  seem  up  to  this  time  had  been  free,  Solomon  is 
said  to  have  *  levied  a  tribute  of  bond-service'  in  building  the 
temple.  "And  all  the  people  that  were  left  of  the  Amorites, 
Hittites,  Perizzites,  Hivites,  and  Jebusites,  which  were  not 
of  the  children  of  Israel,  their  children  that  were  left  after 
them  in  the  land,  whom  the  children  of  Israel  also  were  not 
able  utterly  to  destroy,  upon  these  did  Solomon  levy  a  tribute 
of  bond-service  p^j^-DD)  unto  this  day."  1  Kings  ix.  20,  21. 
An  express  distinction  was  made  between  them  and  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel.  "  But  of  the  children  of  Israel  did  Solomon 
make  no  bondmen,  p^I;',)  but  they  were  men  of  war,  and  his 
servants,"  (that  is,  in  a  higher  sense  than  the  others,)  "and 
his  princes,  and  his  captains,  and  rulers  of  his  chariots,  and 
his  horsemen." — Ver.  22.  Yet  there  is  no  evidence  that  the 
descendants  of  the  Amorites,  &c.,  were  regarded  as  slaves. 
They  were  pressed  into  a  temporary  service  for  the  purpose 
of  procuring  the  materials  of  building  the  temple,  and  were 
doubtless  dismissed  as  soon  as  the  temple  was  completed. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  they  were  held  as  property,  or  that 
they  were  in  any  case  sold,  or  that  they  were  held  in  perpetual 
servitude  of  any  kind.  The  phrase  "  unto  this  day,"  ver  21, 
proves  only  that  they  were  held  until  that  part  of  the  book  of 
Kings  was  composed. 

18» 


210  AN    INQUIllY    INTO    THE 

Two  remarks,  however,  may  be  made  in  view  of  this  trans- 
action. First,  that  until  this  time  they  were  not  regarded 
as  slaves,  or  as  servants  of  any  kind.  The  '  bond-service'  was 
then  laid  upon  them.  They  were  before  freemen,  and  were 
now  pressed  into  the  service  for  a  temporary  purpose. 
Second,  slavery  was  not  common  at  that  time,  or  at  least 
Solomon  had  not  slaves  of  his  own.  If  that  had  been  the 
case,  we  should  have  heard  something  of  it  on  an  occasion 
like  this,  and  his  slaves  would  have  been  required  to  perform 
this  laborious  service.  The  fact  that  Solomon  was  obliged  to 
lay  this  burden  on  a  people  heretofore  free,  demonstrates  that 
there  was  no  large  body  of  slaves  under  his  control,  to  whom 
the  work  could  be  intrusted. 

II.  There  was  no  foreign  traffic  in  slaves.  The  proof  of 
this  is  as  complete  as  it  can  be  where  there  is  no  express  de- 
claration, and  the  fact  is  of  great  importance,  for  if  there  were 
provisions  made  for  the  periodical  emancipation  of  all  who 
were  held  in  servitude,  then  it  is  clear  that  the  system  could 
be  perpetuated  only  by  an  active  foreign  traffic.  It  is  needless 
to  say  that,  though  chiefly  an  agricultural  people,*  the 
Hebrews,  especially  in  the  time  of  Solomon,  had  considerable 
foreign  trade.  Palestine  was  favourably  situated  for  commerce, 
and  particularly  for  a  commerce  in  slaves.  It  was  adjacent 
to  the  Mediterranean,  and  the  rich  productions  of  India,  in  all 
ages  the  most  desirable  objects  of  commerce,  almost  of  neces- 
sity passed  through  some  part  of  it.  It  was  undoubtedly  to 
facilitate  or  secure  this  trade,  that  Solomon  built  Tadmor  or 
Palmyra,  and  it  was  this  which,  in  subsequent  times,  made 
Tyre,  and  Petra,  and  Alexandria,  and  Venice  what  they  were. 
Solomon  also  had  the  advantage  of  a  port  at  Ezion-Geber,  on 
the  Red  Sea,  and  secured  also  from  that  direction  the  rich 
productions  of  India  and  Africa.  The  vicinity  of  Egypt  to 
Palestine,  and  the  intercourse  which  Solomon  had  with  that 

♦  See  Michaelis'  Com.  on  the  Laws  of  Moses,  art.  xxxix. 


SCllirXURAL    VIKWS    OF    SI^VVKRY.  211 

countr\',  made  it  easy,  if  he  had  chosen  to  do  it,  to  import 
slaves  from  northern  Africa.  An  active  commerce  in  slaves 
has,  in  nearly  all  a^es,  been  carried  on  through  Eg-ypt ;  and 
thediflercnt  parts  of  Turkey,  at  tlie  present  day,  are  supplied 
with  those  which  are  procured  in  the  interior  of  Africa,  and 
conveyed  throuc^h  Nubia  and  E^rypt.  An  extensive  slave- 
mart  is  established  at  Shi'ndy,  in  Nubia,  and  the  slave  traffic 
is  among  the  most  profitable  that  now  j)asses  through  Egypt. 
The  number  of  slaves  sold  annually  in  the  slave  market  at 
Shendy  is  about  five  thousand,  a  large  part  of  whom  go  to 
Egypt,  and  thence  to  various  parts  of  Turkey.*  It  may  be 
added  here,  that  slavery  has  always  prevailed  in  Egypt,  and 
in  the  adjacent  countries.  "  According  to  the  most  moderate 
calculation,"  says  Burckhardt,  "  the  number  of  slaves  actually 
in  Egypt  is  forty  thousand.  There  is  hardly  a  village  in 
which  several  of  them  are  not  found,  and  every  person  of  pro- 
perty keeps  at  least  one.  All  the  Bedouin  tribes  also,  who 
surround  these  countries,  are  well  stocked  with  slaves." — 
p.  307.  It  would  not  be  possible  to  refer  to  a  period  in  the 
history  of  Egypt  in  which  slavery  did  not  exist,  and  in  which 
the  tratfic  in  slaves  did  not  constitute  an  important  part  of  the 
commerce  with  other  countries.  There  was  every  temptation, 
therefore,  if  the  Hebrews  engaged  in  commerce  at  all,  to  make 
tliis  a  part  of  the  traffic,  and  there  is  a  moral  certainly,  if 
slavery  was  regarded  as  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the 
Mosaic  institutions,  that  this  species  of  trade  would  have  ex- 
tensively prevailed. 

Yet,  in  every  allusion  to  the  commerce  which  was  carried 
on  with  other  nations,  there  is  not  a  single  instance  where  the 
tralfic  in  slaves  is  mentioned.  There  happens  to  be  quite  an 
extended  specification  of  the  articles  of  trade — a  specification 
which  would  be  sufficient  for  a  custom-house  officer  in  ascer- 
taining the  amount  and  value  of  imports — and  yet  there  is  no 
case  in  which  a  slave  constituted  an  item  in  the  imports. 

•  Sw  thiH  traffic  fully  described  in  Burckhardt's  Travels  in  Nubia, 
pp.  290-^308. 


212  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

Thus  we  have  an  enumeration  in  1  Kings  x.  22,  of  the  articles 
which  were  imported  in  the  "navy  of  Tharshish."  "For 
the  king  had  at  sea  a  navy  of  Tharshish  with  the  navy  of 
Hiram ;  once  in  three  years  came  the  navy  of  Tharshish, 
bringing  gold  and  silver,  ivory,  and  apes,  and  peacocks." 
Comp.  2Chron.  ix.  21.  So  also  Solomon  had  a  seaport  at 
Ezion-Geber,  "  on  the  shore  of  the  Red  Sea,  in  the  land  of 
Edom,"  (1  Kings  ix.  26,)  from  whence  the  traffic  with  Ophir 
was  carried  on,  but  there  is  no  intimation  that  any  of  those 
vessels  were  employed  in  the  slave  trade.  If  the  traffic  ia 
slaves  constituted  any  part  of  this  commerce,  it  is  incredible 
that  "apes  and  peacocks"  should  have  been  specified,  and  no 
allusion  to  what  must  have  been  a  much  more  important 
branch  of  commerce. 

The  considerations  here  suggested  receive  confirmation,  if 
we  advert  to  two  circumstances  mentioned  in  regard  to  the 
commerce  of  Tyre.  The  one  is,  that  a  part  of  the  commer- 
cial operations  of  the  Tyrians  consisted  in  slaves.  Thus  it 
is  said,  (Ezek.  xxvii.  13,)  "  Javan,  Tubal,  and  Mesech,  they 
were  thy  merchants;  they  traded  the  persons  of  men  and 
vessels  of  brass  in  thy  market."  Comp.  Rev.  xviii.  13.  The 
other  circumstance  is,  that  in  the  mention  of  the  trade  which 
the  Hebrews  carried  on  with  Tyre,  there  is  no  allusion  to  any 
such  traffic,  and  the  enumeration  of  other  things  as  the  arti- 
cles in  which  they  traded,  precludes  the  supposition  that  they 
dealt  in  either  the  purchase  or  sale  of  slaves.  "  Judah,  and 
the  land  of  Israel,  they  were  thy  merchants  :  they  traded  in 
thy  market  wheat  of  Minnilh,  and  Pannag,  and  honey,  and 
oil,  and  balm." — ver.  17.  These  circumstances  make  it  mo- 
rally certain  that  in  the  transactions  with  Tyre,  and  in  the 
foreign  commerce  carried  on  from  Ezion-Geber,  no  part  of  the 
merchandise  consisted  of  slaves.  I  do  not  find  in  the  whole 
history  of  the  Hebrew  people  under  the  Mosaic  institutions, 
a  hint  that  they  were  ever  engaged  in  this  species  of  com- 
merce. There  is  no  enumeration  of  slaves  among  the  articles 
of  importation ;  there  is  no  allusion  to  them  in  the  account 


SCRIPTURAL    VIi:WS    OF    SLAVKRY.  213 

of  the  arrival  of  caravans  or  of  foreigners  who  came  to  Pa- 
lestine ;  there  is  no  recorded  instance  of  any  public  sale  of 
slaves;  there  was  no  public  mart  where  they  were  sold; 
there  are  no  merchants  mentioned  who  devoted  their  lives  W 
the  business. 

Now  if  slavery  existed  in  Palestine  to  any  considerable 
degree,  it  must  have  been  kept  uj)  by  the  foreign  tralFic,  and 
if  thai  had  existed,  it  is  incredible  that  in  the  long  time  in 
which  they  existed  as  a  separate  people,  no  allusion  is  ever 
made  to  it.  It  would  be  impossible  to  give  a  correct  history 
of  the  United  States,  without  some  allusion  to  the  slave  trade; 
and  the  records  in  regard  to  the  importation  of  slaves  arc  so 
deeply  engraven  in  all  our  annals,  that  no  lapse  of  time  can 
ever  obliterate  them.  If  the  traffic  existed  in  Palestine  in 
any  manner  at  all  corresponding  to  what  exists  in  our  own 
country,  how  can  it  be  accounted  for  that  in  all  their  history 
there  was  not  the  slightest  allusion  to  it  ?  j 

III.  The  prophets  felt  themselves  at  liberty  to  animadvert 
upon  the  injustice  of  slavery,  and  to  denounce  it  as  entirely 
inconsistent  with  the  Mosaic  institutions.  If  this  was  the 
case,  it  will  follow  that,  though  slavery  may  have  prevailed  to 
some  extent,  yet  it  was  understood  that  the  spirit  of  the  Mo- 
saic institutions  was  opposed  to  it,  and  that  they  were  in- 
tended to  abolish  it.  For  the  prophets  surely  would  not  have 
denounced,  as  wrong,  a  system  which  the  constitution  of  their 
own  country  was  designed  to  perpetuate,  and  which  the  law 
of  their  God  intended  to  sanction. 

In  regard  to  the  fact  that  the  prophets  felt  at  liberty  to  de- 
nounce all  slavery  as  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  Mosaic 
institutions,  I  will  refer  to  two  classes  of  passages  of  Scripture, 
which  will  make  the  matter  entirely  clear.  Before  I  do  this, 
it  may  be  observed,  however,  that  the  allusions  in  the  writings 
of  the  prophets  are  so  infrequent  as  to  lead  us  to  snpj)ose 
that  slavery  in  Pah'stine  did  not  extensively  prevail;  but 
that  when  they  do  allude  to  it,  it  is  in  such  a  way  as  to  leave 


214  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

no  doubt  as   to   the  views  which   they  entertained  on  the 
subject. 

(A)  The  first  class  of  passages  of  Scripture  relates  to  the 
views  which  were  entertained  about  the  propriety  of  subject- 
ing their  own. countrymen  to  slavery  ;  or  the  question  whether 
it  was  proper  for  the  Hebrews  to  make  slaves  of  their  brethren. 
Two  events  which  happened  in  their  history  gave  occasion  to 
the  prophets  to  express  their  views  on  this  point,  and  they  did 
not  hesitate  to  avail  themselves  of  the  opportunity.  The  first 
occurred  during  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  and  is  so  important  on 
the  point  that  I  will  copy  the  account  at  length.  2  Chron. 
xxviii.  8 — 15:  "And  the  children  of  Israel  carried  away 
captive  of  their  brethren  two  hundred  thousand,  women,  sons, 
and  daughters,  and  took  also  away  much  spoil  from  them, 
and  brought  the  spoil  to  Samaria.  But  a  prophet  of  the  Lord 
was  there,  whose  name  was  Oded  ;  and  he  went  out  before  the 
host  that  came  to  Samaria,  and  said  unto  them.  Behold,  be- 
cause the  Lord  God  of  your  fathers  was  wroth  with  Judah, 
he  hath  delivered  them  into  your  hand,  and  ye  have  slain 
them  in  a  rage  that  reacheth  up  unto  heaven.  And  now  ye 
purpose  to  keep  under  the  children  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem 
for  bondmen  and  bondwomen  unto  you  ;  but  are  there  not 
with  you,  even  with  you,  sins  against  the  Lord  your  God  ? 
Now  hear  me,  therefore,  and  deliver  the  captives  again,  which 
ye  have  taken  captive  of  your  brethren ;  for  the  fierce  wrath 
of  God  is  upon  you.  Then  certain  of  the  heads  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Ephraim,  Azariah  the  son  of  Johanan,  Berechiah  the 
son  of  Meshillemoth,  and  Jehizkiah  the  son  of  Shallum,  and 
Amasa  the  son  of  Hadlai,  stood  up  against  them  that  came  from 
the  war,  and  said  unto  them,  ye  shall  not  bring  in  the  captives 
hither ;  for  whereas  we  have  offended  against  the  Lord  already, 
ye  intend  to  add  more  to  our  sins,  and  to  our  trespass  ;  for  our 
trespass  is  great,  and  there  is  fierce  wrath  against  Israel.  So 
the  armed  men  left  the  captives  and  the  spoil  before  the 
princes  and  all  the  congregation.  And  the  men  which  were 
expressed  by  name  rose  up,  and  took  the  captives,  and  with 


1 


SCRIPTT'RAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVERY.  215 

the  spoil  clothed  all  that  were  naked  among  them,  and  ar- 
rayed them,  and  shod  them,  and  c^ave  them  to  eat  and  to  drink, 
and  anointed  them,  and  carried  all  the  feeble  of  them  upon 
asses,  and  brought  them  to  Jericho,  the  city  of  pakn  trees,  to 
iheir  brethren :  then  they  returned  to  Samaria.'*  This  was 
a  case  whicli  settled  one  important  question  in  regard  to  ser- 
vitude. It  was,  that  it  was  not  in  accordance  with  the  spirit 
of  the  Mosaic  institutions,  tlfnt  any  portion  of  the  Hebrew 
people  should  make  slaves  of  their  brethren  who  might  be 
taken  in  war.  The  general  law  in  ancient  times  was,  that 
captives  taken  in  war  were  the  slaves  of  the  victor,  and 
might  be  disj)0sed  of  in  any  Avay  to  their  advantage.  Tliis 
principle  prevailed  all  over  the  heathen  world,  and  was  re- 
garded as  an  indisputable  maxim.*  Nothing  was  more  natu- 
ral than  that  it  should  be  applied  among  the  Hebrews,  when 
they  were  separated  into  different  kingdoms,  and  made  war 
on  each  other;  and,  in  tlie  instance  before  us,  the  attempt  was 
made  to  carry  out  the  principle  in  regard  to  their  captive 
brethren.  The  decisive  rebuke  of  a  prophet ;  the  ready 
acquiescence  of  the  leaders  in  his  views,  and  their  care  in 
restoring  the  captives,  all  show  how  obviously  this  was  a 
violation  of  the  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  institutions,  and  have  settled 
what  was  the  spirit  of  those  institutions,  against  slavery. 
One  such  instance  would  for  ever  determine  the  question 
whether  it  was  proper  to  enslave  their  brethren  who  were 
taken  captive  in  war,  and  we  do  not  hear  that  the  attempt  was 
ever  repeated. 

A  case  of  a  similar  kind,  so  far  as  the  servitude  of  Hebrews 
to  other  Hebrews  was  concerned,  though  not  similar  as  to  the 
question  whether  it  could  be  done  by  reducing  captives  taken 
in  war  to  slavery — that  question  being  regarded  as  settled — 
but  which  equally  went  to  establish  the  point  that  it  was 
regarded  as  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  insti- 
tutions for  the  Hebrews  to  subject  their  brethren  to  servitude, 

•  See  Grotius  de  Jure  Belli  ac  Pacis,  lib.  iii.  cap.  vii. 


216  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

occurred  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah.  This  remarkable  transac- 
tion is  recorded  in  Jer.  xxxiv.  8 — 20.  Its  importance  in  refer- 
ence to  the  point  before  us,  will  make  it  proper  to  dwell  upon  it. 

"  This  is  the  word  that  came  unto  Jeremiah  from  the  Lord, 
after  that  the  king  Zedekiah  had  made  a  covenant  w^th  ail 
the  people  which  were  at  Jerusalem,  to  proclaim  Hberty  unto 
them  ;  that  every  man  should  let  his  man-servant,  and  every 
man  his  maid -servant,  being  an*Hebrew  or  an  Hebrewess,  go 
free  ;  that  none  should  serve  himself  of  them,  to  wit,  of  a  Jew 
his  brother.  Now  when  all  the  princes,  and  all  the  people, 
which  had  entered  into  the  covenant,  heard  that  every  one 
should  let  his  man-sen'ant,  and  every  one  his  maid-servant, 
go  free,  that  none  should  serve  themselves  of  them  any  more, 
then  they  obeyed,  and  let  them  go.  But  afterward  they 
turned,  and  caused  the  servants  and  the  handmaids,  whom 
they  had  let  go  free,  to  return,  and  brought  them  into  subjec- 
tion for  servants  and  for  handmaids. 

"Therefore  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  Jeremiah  from 
the  Lord,  saj^ing.  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  God  of  Israel;  I 
made  a  covenant  with  your  fathers  in  the  day  that  I  brought 
them  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bond- 
men, saying.  At  the  end  of  seven  years  let  ye  go  every  man 
his  brother  an  Hebrew,  which  hath  been  sold  unto  thee ;  and 
when  he  hath  served  thee  six  years,  thou  shalt  let  him  go 
free  from  thee  :  but  your  fathers  hearkened  not  unto  me, 
neither  inclined  their  ear.  And  ye  were  now  turned,  and 
had  done  right  in  my  sight,  in  proclaiming  liberty  every 
man  to  his  neighbour;  and  ye  had  made  a  covenant  before 
me  in  the  house  which  is  called  by  my  name :  but  ye  turned 
and  polluted  my  name,  and  caused  every  man  his  servant, 
and  every  man  his  handmaid,  whom  he  had  set  at  liberty  at 
their  pleasure,  to  return,  and  brought  them  into  subjection,  to 
be  unio  you  for  servants  and  for  handmaids.  Therefore  thus 
saith  the  Lord  :  Ye  have  not  hearkened  unto  me,  in  proclaim- 
ing liberty,  every  one  to  his  brother,  and  every  man  to  his 
neighbour:  behold,  I  proclaim  a  liberty  for  you,  saith  the 


SCRIPTURAL    VH:\VS    OK    SLAVKRY.  217 

Lord,  to  the  sword,  to  the  peslilonce,  and  to  the  famine ;  and 
I  will  make  you  to  be  removed  into  all  the  kingdoms  of  the 
earth.  And  1  will  give  the  men  that  have  transcfn-ssed  my 
covenant,  which  have  not  performed  the  words  of  the  cove- 
nant which  they  had  made  before  me,  when  they  cut  the  calf 
in  twain,  and  passed  between  the  parts  thereof,  the  princes  of 
Judah,  and  the  princes  of  Jerusalem,  the  eunuchs,  and  the 
priests,  and  all  the  people  of  the  land,  which  passed  between 
the  parts  of  the  calf;  I  will  even  give  them  into  the  hand  of 
of  their  enemies,  and  into  the  hand  of  them  that  seek  their 
life  ;  and  their  dead  bodies  shall  be  for  meat  unto  the  fowls 
of  the  heaven,  and  to  the  beasts  of  the  earth." 

In  reirard  to  this  transaction,  the  following  points  are  clear 
from  the  narrative.  (1.)  That  at  that  time  there  were  many 
of  the  Hebrews  who  had,  for  some  cause,  been  reduced  to 
servitude  by  ihtir  brethren.  The  reasons  why  this  had  been 
done  are  unknown,  but  it  is  probable  that  it  had  been  in  the 
manner  contemplated  in  the  laws  of  Moses  when  literally 
understood.  It  may  be  presumed  that  poverty  was  the 
principal  cause,  and  in  the  transaction  there  is  no  intimation 
that  it  had  occurred  from  any  other.  It  may  have  been  pos- 
sible that  there  was  then  an  unusual  degree  of  oppression 
of  this  kind,  but  it  does  not  appear  that  it  was  for  any 
causes  different  from  those  which  the  literal  interpretation 
of  the  Mosaic  laws  seemed  to  contemplate.  The  number  of 
those  who  were  thus  subjected  to  servitude  is  not  men- 
tioned, but  it  would  seem  that  it  was  so  great  as  to  demand 
the  interposition  of  the  prophet.  (2.)  A  reformation  from 
this  evil  was,  from  some  cause  now  unknown,  effected. 
Whether  it  was  originated  by  the  reigning  king  Zedekiah, 
as  a  civil  arrangement,  or  by  the  influence  of  Jeremiah,  as 
a  reJigious  movement,  it  is  impossible  to  determine ;  but 
it  is  certain  that  a  universal  emancipation  of  ail  the  He- 
brews who  were  held  in  servitude  was  agreed  upon,  and 
was  actually  carried  into  efltct.  It  was  evidently  under 
the  patronage  of  the  king,  and  he  gave  his  sanction  to  it, 

11> 


218  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

though  it  may  have  had  its  origin  among  the  religious 
part  of  the  nation,  or  have  been  urged  by  the  prophets. 
*'  This  is  the  word  that  came  unto  Jeremiah  from  the  Lord, 
after  that  the  king  Zedekiah  had  made  a  covenant  with  all 
the  people  which  were  at  Jerusalem,  to  proclaim  hb'^rty  unto 
them ;  that  every  man  should  let  his  man-servant,  and  every 
man  his  maid-servant,  being  an  Hebrew  or  an  Bebrewess,  go 
free  ;  that  none  should  serve  himself  of  them,  to  wit,  of  a 
Jew  his  brother.  Now  when  all  the  princes,  and  all  the 
people  w^hich  had  entered  into  the  covenant,  heard  that 
every  one  should  let  his  man-servant,  and  every  one  his 
maid-servant  go  free,  that  none  should  serve  themselves  of 
them  any  more,  then  they  obeyed,  and  let  them  go." — ver. 
8 — 10.  It  may  be  presumed  that  such  an  emancipation  was 
not  effected  without  difficulty,  and  without  reluctance  on  the 
part  of  those  who  claimed  their  brethren  as  bound  to  servi- 
tude. We  know  that  men  are  not  usually  disposed  to  emanci- 
pate those  who  are  held  in  bondage,  and  the  subsequent 
transactions  in  regard  to  those  here  referred  to,  show  that 
they  had  not  been  restored  to  freedom  Avithout  an  effort. 
Still,  it  was  remarkable,  as  an  instance  of  voluntary  emanci- 
pation— for  it  was  not  the  result  of  an  absolute  command  on 
the  part  of  the  sovereign,  but  of  a  covenant  or  compact — 
"  Zedekiah  made  a  covenant  with  all  the  people."  It  is  one 
of  the  earliest  instances  on  record  of  the  voluntary  emanci- 
pation of  large  numbers  held  in  bondage,  and  shows  that  it 
may  be  possible  to  induce  a  people  to  act  from  such  a  sense 
of  justice  as  to  release  those  whom  they  hold  as  slaves.  For 
any  thing  that  appears,  it  would  have  been  as  difficult  to 
bring  about  such  an  emancipation  among  the  Hebrews  by 
their  own  consent,  as  it  would  now  be  in  Maryland  or  Vir- 
ginia. (3.)  After  they  had  been  emancipated,  an  attempt  was 
made  to  reduce  them  again  to  bondage,  in  spite  of  the  solemn 
covenant  by  which  they  had  been  set  at  liberty.  "  But  after- 
wards they  turned,  and  caused  the  servants  and  the  hand- 
maidens whom  they  had  let  go  free,  to  return,  and  brought 


SCRIPTUILVL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKUV.  219 

them  into  subjection  for  servants  antl  for  handmaids.'* 
— ver.  11.  Tliis  is  a  nianift?station  of  the  f^enuine  spirit  of 
slavery,  and  shows  how  strong  is  the  tendency  in  human 
nature  to  relapse  into  it  ag^ain,  even  when  convinced  that  it  is 
wrong.  So  powerful  is  the  spirit  of  avarice  in  men  ;  so  com- 
mon the  indisposition  to  labour ;  so  constantly  operating  the 
desire  to  live  by  the  avails  of  the  labour  of  others;  and  so 
much  of  ease,  and  comfort,  and  luxury,  is  supposed  to  be  con- 
nected with  slavery,  that  there  is  scarcely  any  form  of  wrong 
wliich  men  are  more  reluctant  to  relinquish,  or  to  which  thoy 
more  readily  return.  (4.)  In  this  slate  of  things,  the  prophet 
in  a  most  severe  manner  rebuked  those  who  attempted  to 
subject  their  brethren  again  to  servitude,  and  denounced  on 
them  the  severest  judgments  of  heaven.  He  reminded  them 
of  the  solemn  covenant  into  which  God  entered  with  their 
fathers,  when  he  released  them  from  Egyptian  bondage  ;  of 
the  absolute  command  that  no  Hebrew  should  on  any  consi- 
deration be  made  to  serve  more  than  six  years ;  and  says  that 
for  the  crime  of  subjecting  their  brethren  again  to  servitude 
after  they  had  been  released  from  bondage,  God  would  sub- 
ject them  *'to  the  sword,  to  the  pestilence,  and  to  the  famine,'* 
and  would  cause  them  to  be  removed  "  into  all  the  kingdoms 
of  the  earth." — ver.  17.  Nothing  could  have  shown  more 
decidedly  the  abhorrence  with  which  the  whole  transaction 
was  viewed,  or  the  fact  that  subjecting  their  brethren  to  servi- 
tude was  entirely  incompatible  with  the  whole  spirit  of  the 
Hebrew  institutions.  If  the  permanent  existence  of  slavery 
had  been  contemplated  as  in  accordance  wMth  the  spirit  of  the 
Mosaic  institutions,  no  effort  would  have  been  made  to  secure 
t^heir  release,  nor  would  the  conduct  of  those  who  endea- 
voured to  fasten  the  bonds  on  their  brethren  after  they  had 
been  once  broken  off,  have  been  met  with  so  fearful  a 
rebuke. 

The  two  cases  now  referred  to,  show,  that  though  accord- 
ing to  the  exact  Irtter  of  the  Mosaic  statutes  it  was  lawful,  in 
certain  cases,  to  hold  their  brethren  in  servitude,  yet  that  it 


220  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

was  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  those  institutions  that  it  should 
be  perpetuated  ;  that  their  brethren  were  not  to  be  made 
slaves  in  the  way  which  was  then  invariably  regarded  as 
proper ;  and  that  any  attempt  to  forge  the  chains  of  slavery 
on  them  permanently  must  meet  with  the  decided  rebuke  of 
Heaven.  They  show  that  the  entire  subject  was  observed 
with  an  eye  of  vigilance  by  the  prophets  whom  God  raised 
up,  and  that  the  whole  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  institutions  tended 
to  introduce  a  period  when  no  Hebrew  should  be  the  servant 
of  his  brother. 

(B)  A  second  class  of  texts  of  Scripture  will  show  us  that 
the  prophets  felt  themselves  at  liberty  to  utter  the  language 
of  rebuke  so  decisively  on  the  whole  subject  of  slavery,  as  to 
prove  that  in  any  and  every  form  it  was  contrary  to  the  spirit 
of  the  Mosaic  laws,  and  was  never  designed  to  be  a  perma- 
nent institution.  If  we  find  a  prophet  of  God,  in  a  single 
instance,  condemning  the  existence  of  slavery ;  demanding  that 
those  held  in  bondage  should  be  emancipated  as  an  acceptable 
service  to  God  ;  and  denouncing  the  whole  system  as  oppres- 
sive, we  may  make  use  of  this  fact  to  prove  that  the  Mosaic 
laws  were  not  favourable  to  it,  and  never  intended  that  it 
should  be  permanent.  We  find,  in  fact,  just  such  an  in- 
stance in  the  book  of  Isaiah,  ch.  Iviii.  6 :  "Is  not  this  the 
fast  that  I  have  chosen?  to  loose  the  bands  of  wickedness,  to 
undo  the  heavy  burdens,  to  let  the  oppressed  go  free,  and  that 
ye  break  every  yoke  V  The  question  now  is,  to  whom  would 
this  be  understood  as  referring  ?  Who  would  come  under 
the  description  of  the  oppressed?  Who  would  have  obtained 
release  by  'breaking  every  yoke?'  Would  a  compliance 
with  the  demand  of  the  prophet  have  been  consistent  with 
the  continuance  of  slavery  ?  If  the  command  of  the  prophet 
had  been  obeyed  in  its  true  spirit,  would  there  still  have 
remained  large  bodies  of  men  in  the  land  held  as  property, 
and  subjected  to  the  evils  of  servitude  ?  Those  who  suppose 
that  slavery  was  contemplated  by  Moses  as  a  permanent 
institution,  and  that  it  was  regarded  by  the  prophets  as  an 


scmrTURAL  vu:\vs  of  slavkrv.  221 

instilulion  with  which  they  were  not  to  intermcdille  because 
it  was  (.'staMished  by  law,  must  necessarily  behove  that  all 
that  the  prophet  contemjilatcd  here  could  have  been  complied 
with,  even  if  the  Hebrews  should  have  continued  to  be 
owners  of  slaves  to  any  extent.  It  becomes  important,  then, 
to  ascertain  the  real  idea  which  was  in  the  mind  of  the 
prophet. 

(1.)  It  is  clear  that  the  evil  which  he  desired  should 
be  removed,  he  considered  to  be  a  moral  evil,  or  .sin.  The 
appropriate  fast  was  to  "loose  the  bands  of  fcickcdness  ;'*  to 
cease  to  do  wronj^.  The  eye  was  fixed  on  some  prevailing 
form  of  ini(iuity  which  made  it  proper  that  there  should  be 
fastins:  on  account  of  it,  and  which  should  be  removed  in 
order  that  the  act  of  fasting  might  be  acceptable  to  God. 

(2.)  The  things  which  they  were  to  do  in  relation  to  the 
various  forms  of  evil,  in  order  that  their  fasting  might  be  ac- 
ceptable, are  distinctly  specified,  and  are  such  as  to  lead  to 
the  belief  that  slavery  was  referred  to,  and  such  that  it  would 
be  understood  that  the  prophet  meant  that  it  should  at  once 
cease.  That  the  expressions  used  by  the  prophet  would  include 
slavery,  if  it  existed  then,  will  be  apparent  by  a  brief  exami- 
nation of  the  language  employed  by  him. 

(a)  The  first  thing  specified  is,  that  they  should  "  loose  the 
bands  of  wickedness."  The  idea  clearly  is,  that  they  were 
to  dissolve  every  tie  which  unjustly  bound  their  fellow-men. 
If  they  were  exercising  any  cruel  authority  over  others  ;  if 
they  had  bound  them  in  any  way  to  any  service  or  obligation 
contrary  to  the  law  of  God,  and  the  demands  of  justice,  they 
were  to  release  them.  This  might  refer  to  their  holding 
others  to  contracts  fraudulently  made  ;  or  to  their  liolding 
others  to  strict  payment  who  were  unable  to  meet  their  obli- 
gations ;  or  to  their  subjecting  others  to  more  rigid  servitude 
than  was  allowed  by  the  laws  of  Moses ;  but  it  would  not 
require  a  ver}'  ardent  imagination  for  any  one  to  see  that  if 
he  held  others  as  slaves  at  oily  this  came  fairly  under  the 
debcription  of  the  prophet.     A  man  with  a  tender  conscience, 


222  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

who  held  slaves,  would  at  least  have  suspected  that  this 
part  of  the  description  might  have  been  intended  to  include 
himself. 

(b)  The  second  thing  specified  is,  that  they  should  "undo 
the  heavy  burdens" — hterally,  '  to  shake  off  the  bands  of  the 
yoke  ;'  that  is,  the  yoke  of  captives,  of  the  oppressed,  &c. 
The  same  word  is  used  to  denote  burden  (run)  which  in  the 
subsequent  member  is  rendered  yoke  ;  and  the  verb  which  is 
rendered  "  undo"  '■\r\r\,  from  -^nj,  is  elsewhere  employed  to  de- 
note emancipation  from  servitude.  See  Psalm  cv.  20.  The 
idea  here  is,  that  the  yoke  was  attached  to  the  necks  of  animals 
h}^  cords  or  bands,*  and  that  those  cords  or  bands  were  to  be 
so  loosened  that  the  one  which  bore  the  yoke  should  be  free. 
The  yoke  in  the  Scriptures  is  commonly  employed  as  the 
emblem  of  oppression,  or  of  compulsory  toil  or  servitude,  and 
is  undoubtedly  so  used  here.  The  whole  phrase  here  used 
denotes  the  release  of  captives  or  slaves,  and  would,  to  one 
accustomed  to  Scripture  language,  be  so  understood  here. 
Thus  in  Psalm  cv.  17—20 : 

He  sent  a  man  before  them  even  Joseph, 

Who  was  sold  for  a  servant; 

Whose  feet  they  hurt  with  fetters : 

He  was  laid  in  iron ; 

Until  the  time  that  his  word  came, 

The  word  of  the  Lord  tried  him. 

The  king  sent  and  loosed  him — iriTjl^l, 

Even  the  ruler  of  the  people,  and  let  him  go  free. 

So  in  Psalm  cxlvi.  7  :  "The  Lord  looseth  the  prisoners,'* 
where  the  same  Hebrew  word  occurs. 

(c)  The  third  thing  specified  is,  that  they  were  to  "let  the 
oppressed  go  free."  This  language  is  still  more  emphatic  and 
unambiguous  than  that  before  employed.  The  word  rendered 
"oppressed"  (marg.  broken),  is  from  ]'^T  rdlzatz  to  break,  to 

•  See  Fragments  to  Taylor's  Calmet,  No.  xxviii. 


SCRIPTURAL    Views    OF   SLAVKRY.  2*23 

break  down  ;  to  treat  with  violence,  to  oppress.  It  may  ap- 
ply to  those  who  are  treated  with  violence  in  any  way,  or  who 
are  broken  down  with  hard  usage.  It  may  refer,  therefore, 
to  slaves,  who  are  crushed  with  bondage  or  toil ;  to  inferiors, 
who  are  crushed  by  the  exactions  of  those  above  them  ;  or  to 
the  subjects  of  a  tyrant,  groaning  under  his  yoke.  If  slavery 
e-xisled  at  the  time  when  this  word  was  used  in  the  form  in 
which  it  is  usually  found,  it  would  be  understood  as  including 
that;  at  least  it  would  be  so  understood  by  the  slaves  themselves ; 
for  if  any  system  properly  deserves  to  be  called  ojiprestion, 
it  is  slavery.  This  interpretation  is  confirmed  by  the  use  of 
the  word  rendered  free.  This  word  'rsn  hhophshi,  evident- 
ly refers  to  the  act  of  freeing  a  slave.  The  person  who  had 
been  once  a  slave,  and  who  had  obtained  his  freedom,  was 
denominated  'fan  hhophshi.*  The  word  occurs,  and  is  so 
used,  in  the  following  places:  Ex.  xxi.  2,  "And  the  seventh 
[year]  he  shall  go  oui  free  ;*'  vcr.  5,  "  I  will  not  go  oui  free  ;" 
xxvi.  27,  "He  shall  let  him  go  free;''''  Deut.  xv.  12,  "Thou 
shalt  let  him  ^ofree  ;"  ver.  13,  "  When  thou  sendest  him  out 
free  ;'^  ver.  l!^,  "When  thou  sendt  st  him  ?iwny  free  f  Job 
iii.  li),  "The  servant  is  free  from  his  master;"  that  is,  in  the 
grave,  where  there  is  universal  emancipation.  So  in  the  places 
above  referred  to,  respecting  thejreedom  of  the  Hebrews  who 
had  been  held  as  slaves,  (Jer.  xxxiv.  9,  10,  11,  14,  10,)  the 
same  Hebrew  word  is  used.  It  occurs  in  no  other  places  ex- 
cept the  following:  1  Sam.  xvii.  25,  "And  make  his  father's 
house  free  in  Israel,"  referring  to  the  favour  that  was  pro- 
mised to  one  that  should  slay  Goliath  of  Gath.  Job  xxxix.  5, 
"Who  hath  sent  out  the  wild  ass  y'ree/'"  Ps.  Ixxxviii.  5. 
(6.)  **Free  among  the  dead."  The  word  is  one  that  would 
be  naturally  understood  by  a  Hebrew  as  referring  to  freedom 
from  servitude,  and  unless  there  was  something  in  the  connec- 
tion that  made  it  necessary  to  adopt  a  different  signification, 
it  would  be  so  regarded  of  course.     In  the  case  before  us, 

•  Sec  Jahxi's  -Yrchacology,  §  IVl. 


224  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

such  an  interpretation  would  be  obvious,  and  if  slavery  at 
that  time  existed  in  Palestine,  a  Jew  would  understand  the 
prophet  as  saying  that  the  slave  was  to  be  released  in  order 
that  an  "acceptable  fast"  might  be  observed. 

(d)  The  fourth  thing  specified  is,  that  they  were  "  to  break 
every  yoke."  This  also  would  be  naturally  understood  of 
slavery,  if  it  existed  at  that  time.  A  *  yoke,'  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, is  a  symbol  of  servitude  or  of  oppression,  and  the  pro- 
phet demanded,  in  order  that  an  acceptable  fast  should  be 
observed,  that  every  thing  which  could  be  properly  regarded 
as  a  yoke  should  be  broken.  This  requisition,  if  complied 
with,  would  restore  all  to  their  equal  rights. 

If  now  this  proclamation  were  made  in  the  United  Stales, 
and  were  fairly  complied  with,  no  one  can  doubt  that  it  would 
lead  to  the  emancipation  of  the  slave.  The  language  is  such 
that  it  cannot  well  be  misunderstood.  The  prophet  demands 
a  cessation  of  that  which  would  include  slavery,  and  specifies, 
in  order  to  an  acceptable  fast,  that  that  should  be  abandoned 
which  has  always  entered  into  it. 

These  are  all  the  cases  which  I  have  been  able  to  find  in 
which  the  prophets  allude  to  the  subject  of  slavery.  They 
are  not  numerous,  and  the  fact  that  they  are  no  more  nume- 
rous suggests  the  conclusion  unavoidably  that  slavery  was  not 
a  common  thing  in  Palestine,  or  that  if  it  prevailed  it  was  a 
very  mild  system.  But  from  the  references  which  we  have 
found  to  it,  and  the  manner  in  which  it  is  noticed  by  the  pro- 
phets, we  are  led  to  the  following  conclusions  :  — 

(1.)  That  the  prophets  felt  themselves  at  entire  liberty  to 
animadvert  upon  it,  and  to  state  their  views  clearly  in  regard 
to  it.  They  did  not  consider  themselves  restrained  from 
doing  it  by  the  fact  that  it  was  sustained  by  law ;  or  by  the 
plea  that  it  was  a  civil  institution,  or  that  the  ministers  of  reli- 
gion had  nothing  to  do  with  it.  The  men  who  were  sent 
from  God  as  his  ambassadors  to  the  people,  did  not  suppose 
that,  in  Hfting  up  their  voice  in  opposition  to  it,  they  were  doing 
any  thing  contrary  to  what  fairly  came  within  their  notice  as 


scRiPTiTRAL  ^^^^vs  of  slavkry.  225 

Teli<iious  teachers,  nor  did  thoy  regard  it  as  a  political  instilu- 
lioi)  in  such  a  sense  llmt  lliey  were  not  to  advert  to  it. 

It  is  often  said  in  our  couiiiry  iliat  slavery  is  a  civil  institu- 
tion ;  that  it  pertains  solely  to  the  states  where  it  exists;  that 
it  is  sustained  and  sanctioned  by  law  ;  that  the  Constitution 
of  the  Ijiion  makes  provijsion  for  its  perpetuity,  and  that  it  is 
not  appropriate  for  the  ministers  of  religion,  and  for  ecclesias- 
tical bodies,  to  intermeddle  with  it.  This  plea,  however, 
mii:ht  have  been  used  with  much  more  propriety  among  the 
Hebrews.  Their  Constitution  was,  what  ours  is  not,  of  divine 
origin,  and  it  would  have  been  easy  for  a  friend  of  slavery  to 
have  said  to  the  prophets  that  the  institution  was  sanctioned 
by  the  laws  which  all  acknowledged  to  be  of  divine  appoint- 
ment, and  that  arrangements  were  made  for  its  perpetuity  in 
the  constitution  of  the  commonwealth.  Why  would  not  such 
an  argument  have  as  much  weight  then  as  it  should  be 
allowed  to  have  now  ?     Yet 

(2.)  The  prophets  felt  themselves  at  entire  liberty  to 
exhort  the  people  to  restore  their  slaves  to  freedom.  They 
considered  that  slavery  was  as  proper  a  subject  for  them  to 
discuss  as  any  other.  They  treated  it  as  if  it  were  entirely 
within  their  province,  and  never  appear  to  have  hesitated 
about  expressing  their  views  of  it. 

(3.)  They  never  speak  of  it  as  an  institution  which  it  was 
desirable  to  perpetuate,  as  contributing  to  the  welfare  of  the 
community.  In  the  few  notices  which  we  have  of  it,  there  is 
a  uniform  representation  of  its  nature.  It  is,  in  their  view,  a 
hard  and  oppressive  system  ;  a  system  which  should  be  aban- 
doned if  there  were  acceptable  service  rendered  to  God. 
There  is  no  apo'ogy  made  for  it ;  no  pleading  for  it  as  a  desi- 
rable system,  and  no  attempt  to  show  that  it  was  in  accord- 
ance with  the  laws  of  the  land.  In  their  writings  there  is  no 
such  effort  to  defend  it  or  apologize  for  it,  as,  I  am  grieved 
to  say,  may  often  be  found  in  the  preaching  and  the  writings 
of  ministers  of  the  gospel  in  the  United  Stales.  It  would 
not  be  difficult  to  imagine  what  would  have  been  the  emotions 


226  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

of  Isaiah,  after  he  had  written  the  fifty-eighth  chapter  of  his 
prophecies,  were  he  to  read  some  of  the  apologies  for  slavery 
issued  by  ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  by  professors  in  theo- 
logical seminaries  at  the  present  day ;  or  should  he  hear  the 
sentiments  uttered  in  debate  in  ecclesiastical  synods,  assem- 
blies, conferences  and  conventions. 

(4.)  From  the  whole  view,  also,  it  may  be  inferred  that  the 
prophets  did  not  suppose  that  the  institution  of  slavery  was  in 
accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  institutions,  or  was 
designed  to  be  perpetuated.  Their  treatment  of  it  is  just  such 
as  would  be  natural  on  the  supposition  that  they  considered 
those  institutions  to  have  been  so  arranged  that,  while  it  was 
for  a  while  tolerated^  the  tendency  and  design  was  ulti- 
mately to  remove  the  evil  entirely,  and  to  make  the  Hebrews 
throughout  a  free  people. 

As  one  of  the  results  of  this  inquiry,  it  is  apparent  that  the 
Hebrews  were  not  a  nation  of  slaveholders.  There  is  no  evi- 
dence that  they  engaged  in  the  foreign  slave-trade ;  there  is 
none  that  the  domestic  slave-trade  prevailed ;  there  is  none  that 
there  were  any  marts  for  the  purchase  or  sale  of  slaves  ;  there 
is  none  that  they  purchased  or  sold  slaves  at  all.  There  is  no 
evidence  that  they  even  purchased  of  others  the  captives  made 
in  war ;  and  there  is  none  that,  as  was  usual  among  other 
people,  a  Hebrew  ever  sold  a  captive  made  in  war  to  a 
Hebrew  brother  or  to  a  stranger.  The  fair  inference  from  all 
this  is,  that  the  Mosaic  institutions  were  not  fitted  to  foster 
the  spirit  of  slavery,  and  that  while  it  prevailed  among  other 
people,  there  was  some  process  going  on  in  Judea  adapted  to 
separate  its  inhabitants  from  all  connection  with  the  system. 

As  another  result  of  this  inquiry,  it  may  be  inferred  that 
slavery  altogether  ceased  in  the  land  of  Palestine.  On 
what  evidence  would  a  man  rely  to  prove  that  slavery  existed 
at  all  in  that  land  in  the  time  of  the  later  prophets,  of  the 
Maccabees,  or  when  the  Saviour  appeared  ?  There  are  abun- 
dant proofs,  as  we  shall  see,  that  it  existed  in  Greece  and 
Rome;  but  what  is  the  evidence  that  it  existed  in  Judea? 


srRirTt'RAL    VIKWS    UK    SLAVKUV.  2z^ 

So  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  ascertain,  there  are  no  declara- 
tions that  it  did,  to  be  found  in  the  canonical  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  or  in  Josephus.  There  are  no  allusions  to  laws 
and  customs  which  imply  that  it  was  prevalent.  There  are 
no  coins  or  medals  which  suppose  it.  There  are  no  facts 
which  do  not  admit  of  an  easy  explanation  on  the  supposition 
that  slavery  had  ceased,  and  that  the  Hebrew  people,  though 
themselves  often  sold  into  captivity  as  slaves,  had  long  since 
ceased  all  connection  with  it  themselves.  The  only  intima- 
tions of  the  existence  of  servitude  at  all  between  the  time  of  the 
closing  of  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  advent  of 
the  Saviour,  consist  of  a  very  few  notices  in  the  books  of  the 
Apocrypha.  Thus  in  the  book  of  Judith,  ch.  xiv.  13,  it  is 
said,  "  So  they  came  to  Holofernes'  tent,  and  said  to  him  that 
had  charge  of  all  his  things.  Waken  now  our  lord  ;  for  the 
siavcsj'^  or  servants,  (ot  6oCxoi,)  "have  been  bold  to  come 
down  against  us  to  battle."  This  proves  that  the  Hebrews 
were  regarded  as  servants  to  the  Assyrians,  for  in  fact 
many  of  them,  under  Holofernes,  had  been  reduced  to  bond- 
age. So  in  1  Mace.  iii.  41:  "And  the  merchants  of  the 
country,  hearing  of  the  fame  of  them,  took  gold  and  silver 
very  much,  with  servants,  and  came  into  the  camp  to  buy  the 
children  of  Israel  for  slaves.''^  This  proves  that  it  was  not 
uncommon  for  surrounding  nations  to  purchase  slaves,  about 
which,  indeed,  there  can  be  no  dispute  ;  but  it  docs  not  demon- 
strate that  this  was  practised  in  Judea,  or  by  the  Jews  them- 
selves. The  following  passages  also  in  the  Apocrypha  show 
that  there  was  servitude  existing  of  some  kind  among  the 
Hebrews,  but  do  not,  unless  in  a  single  instance,  determine 
its  nature.  Wisdom,  xviii.  11  ;  Ecclesias.  iv.  30,  vi.  11,  vii. 
20,  21,  xix.  21,  xxiii.  10,  xxxiii.  24,  25,  20,  30,  31,  xxxvii. 
11,  xlii.  5;  2  Mace.  viii.  3.3;  Tobit  x.  10;  Judith,  x.  2:3; 
Esth.  XV.  10;  Susan.  27;  1  Mace.  i.  6,  8;  2  Mace.  vii.  6. 
33.  One  of  these  passages  only  alludes  to  the  fact  that  ser- 
vants were  bought  with  money.  Ecclesias.  xxxiii.  30  :  "If 
thou  have  a  servant,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  thyself,  because 


228  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

thou  hast  bought  him  with  a  price."  Marg.  as  in  Gr.  in 
blood,  {iv  ai/nati,.)  The  meaning  probably  is,  that  he  was  a 
captive  taken  in  war.  In  what  way  the  others  who  are  men- 
tioned were  obtained,  or  what  was  the  nature  of  their  servi- 
tude, is  in  no  case  stated.  It  is  only  intimated  that  they 
would  escape  if  they  could.  Ecclesias.  xxxiii.  25,  31.  Comp. 
2  Mace.  viii.  35. 

If,  therefore,  it  be  true  that  slavery  did  not  prevail  in  Judea; 
that  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  Hebrews  engaged  in  the 
traffic,  and  that  the  prophets  felt  themselves  at  liberty  to 
denounce  the  system  as  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  Mosaic 
institutions,  these  facts  will  furnish  an  important  explanation 
of  some  things  in  regard  to  the  subject  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  will  prepare  us  to  enter  on  the  inquiry  how  it  was 
regarded  by  the  Saviour.  For  if  slavery  did  not  exist  in 
Palestine  in  his  time  ;  if  he  never  came  in  contact  with  it,  it 
will  not  be  fair  to  infer  that  he  was  not  opposed  to  it,  because 
he  did  not  often  refer  to  it,  and  expressly  denounce  it.  He 
was  not  accustomed  to  go  out  of  his  way  to  denounce  sins 
with  which  he  did  not  come  in  contact.  The  inquiry 
whether  there  were  slaves  in  Judea  in  his  time,  will  be  appro- 
priately considered  in  the  next  chapter. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVERY.  229 


CHAPTER  VII. 

The  relation  of  Christianity  to  Slavery. 

In  the  previous  chapters,  I  have  examined  at  length  all  that 
seems  to  refer  to  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Old  Testan\ent. 
If  the  train  of  reasoning  which  has  been  pursued  is  correct, 
we  have  reached  the  conclusion  that,  so  far  from  its  being  true 
thai  the  Mosaic  system  was  designed  to  uphold  and  perpetuate 
the  institution,  the  fact  was,  tliat  under  the  fair  operation  of 
that  system,  slavery  would  at  no  distant  period  come  entirely 
to  an  end.  The  fair  and  honest  application  of  the  Mosaic 
laws  to  slavery  in  the  United  States  would  speedily  remove 
the  evil  from  our  country. 

In  approaching  the  New  Testament  with  reference  to  this 
subject,  the  true  points  of  inquiry  may  be  stated  in  few 
words: — Did  Christ  and  his  apostles  look  benignly  on  the 
institution  ?  Did  they  regard  it  as  a  good  institution,  or  as 
one  adapted  to  promote  permanent  good  ?  Did  they  consider 
it  to  be  desirable  for  the  highest  comfort  of  social  life?  Did 
they  consider  that  they  who  held  slaves  could  illustrate  the 
power  and  excellence  of  the  Christian  religion  in  the  best 
manner,  while  continuing  in  that  relation  ?  Did  they  suppose 
that  they  who  were  held  in  slavery  were  occupying  the  most 
desirable  condition  in  life,  and  that  they  should  consider  that 
the  Christian  religion  cont(^mplated  the  continuance  of  that 
relation  ?  Was  it  the  design  of  the  Saviour,  that  the  fair  ap- 
plication of  the  gospel  to  this  system  should  perpetuate  it  in 
his  church  ? 

The  affirmative  of  these  questions  it  is  necessary  for  the 
advocates  of  slaver}'  to  make  out,  in  order  to  show  that  the 

20 


230  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

New  Testament  sustains  the  system.  If  the  affirmative  can 
be  made  out,  and  if  it  can  be  shown  that  slavey  has  flourished, 
and  must  continue  to  flourish,  under  they«/r  application  of  the 
principles  which  Christ  and  his  apostles  laid  down,  it  may  be 
inferred  that  Christianity  is  favourable  to  the  institution ;  if 
otherwise,  not. 

The  points  which  the  advocates  of  slavery  refer  to  as  show- 
ing that  Christianity  is  not  unfavourable  to  the  system,  or  that 
the  system  is  not  contrary  to  the  New  Testament,  are  the 
following : — 

(1.)  That  slavery  existed  in  the  time  of  Christ,  and  that 
though  he  must  often  have  come  in  contact  with  it,  he  did  not 
condemn  or  denounce  it.  Thus  it  is  said  by  the  Presbytery 
of  Tombecbee,  pp.  15,  16, 

"  That  slavery  is  not  a  moral  evil,  is  evident  from  the  fact, 
that  it  is  nowhere  condemned  by  the  Redeemer,  or  his  apos- 
tles in  the  New  Testament.  Afl  principles,  and  all  practices, 
which  would  exclude  from  the  favour  of  God,  and  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  are  recorded  with  great  plainness  without 
respect  of  persons.  Witness  the  manner  in  which  the  scribes 
and  Pharisees  were  addressed  :  '  For  I  say  unto  you,  That 
except  your  righteousness  shall  exceed  the  righteousness  of 
the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  ye  shall  in  no  wise  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.'  Matt.  v.  20.  In  a  long  catalogue  of 
denunciations  against  various  sins  by  the  Redeemer  himself, 
contained  in  the  23d  chapter  of  Matthew,  and  from  the  13th 
to  the  33d  verses  inclusive,  not  a  word  is  said  against  the  sin 
of  slavery. 

"  How  does  all  this  come  to  pass,  if  it  be  so  '  great  an  eviP 
as  our  brethren  seem  to  think  ?  In  the  sermon  on  the  Mount 
not  a  word  is  uttered  against  the  sin  of  slavery.  A  centurion 
came  to  Jesus  in  Capernaum,  beseeching  him,  and  saying, 
Lord,  my  servant  lieth  at  home  sick  of  the  palsy,  grievously 
tormented.  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  I  will  come  and  heal  him. 
The  centurion  answered  and  said.  Lord,  I  am  not  worthy 
that  thou  shouldest  come  under  my  roof;  but  speak  the  word 


SCKIPTT.'1L\L    VILWS    OF    SLAVERY.  231 

only,  and  niv  servant  sliall  be  healed.  For  I  am  a  man  un- 
der authority,  having:  soldiers  under  me,  and  I  say  unto  this 
man,  go,  and  he  g^oeth  ;  and  to  another,  come,  and  he  cometh  ; 
and  to  my  servant,  do  this,  and  he  doeth  it.  The  Lord  said, 
♦  I  have  not  found  so  great  faith,  no  not  in  Israel.'  Matt.  viii. 
5—10.  The  centurion  was  a  slaveholder,  and  instead  of 
being  reproved  by  the  Saviour,  he  received  the  highest  com- 
mendation." 

So  also  the  Princeton  Repertory,  (April  1836,  p.  275,)  "It 
is  on  all- hands  acknowledged  that,  at  the  time  of  the  advent 
of  Jesus  Christ,  slavery  in  its  worst  forms  prevailed  over  the 
whole  world.  The  Saviour  found  it  around  him  in  Judea, 
&c.  The  subject  is  hardly  alluded  to  bij  Christ  in  any  of 
his  personal  instructions.''  So  in  the  Princeton  Repertory 
for  October,  1844,  it  is  said,  "  Neither  Christ  nor  his  apostles 
ever  denounced  slgveholding  as  a  crime." 

(2.)  That  slavery  existed  throughout  the  Roman  world, 
wherever  the  apostles  went,  and  yet  that  they  did  not  denounce 
it  as  an  evil,  or  proclaim  the  necessity  of  immediate  emancipa- 
tion. So  the  Princeton  Repertory  for  1836,  p.  275,  '*  The 
apostles  met  with  it  in  Asia,  Greece,  Italy.  How  did  they 
treat  it  ?  Not  by  the  denunciation  of  slavery  as  necessarily 
and  universally  sinful.  The  apostles  refer  to  it,  not  to  pro- 
nounce upon  it  AS  A  QUESTION  OF  MORALS,  but  to  prcscribc  the 
relative  duties  of  masters  and  slaves.''  So  in  the  number 
for  October,  1844,  it  is  said  by  the  Princeton  Reviewer,  "  At 
the  time  of  the  introduction  of  Christianity,  slavery  in  its  worst 
form  prevailed  extensively  over  the  world.  The  slaves  are 
estimated  as  amounting  to  one  half  or  two-thirds  of  the  popu- 
lation of  the  Roman  empire  ;  and  the  severity  with  which 
they  were  treated  was  extreme."  But  ^^  neither  Christ  nor 
his  apostles  ever  denounced  slaveholding  as  a  crime." 

So  the  Presbytery  of  Tombecbee  :  "  In  the  whole  catalogue  of 
prohibitions  which  disqualify  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  sla- 
very is  not  once  named.  Did  the  apostles  say  any  thing  on  the 
subject  that  justifies  its  existence  among  a  Christian  people  ? 


232  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

This  Presbytery  believes  they  did.  Let  every  man  abide 
in  the  same  calling  in  which  he  was  called.  Art  thou  called 
being  a  servant  ?  Care  not  for  it ;  but  if  thou  mayest  be  made 
free,  use  it  rather.  For  he  that  is  called  in  the  Lord,  being  a 
servant,  is  the  Lord's  freeman.  Likewise  also,  he  that  is  called, 
being  free,  is  Christ's  servant.  Ye  are  bought  with  a  price  ; 
be  not  ye  the  servants  of  men.  Brethren,  let  every  man, 
wherein  he  is  called,  therein  abide  Avith  God.  1  Cor.  vii.  20 
— 24.  The  Bible  makes  slavery  a  part  of  the  domestic  circle ; 
it  is  associated  with  husband  and  wife,  parents  and  children. 

"  Slaves  are  directed  in  what  manner  they  are  to  demean 
themselves  as  members  of  the  civil  and  social  compact.  Ser- 
vants, be  obedient  to  them  that  are  your  masters  according  to 
the  flesh,  >vith  fear  and  trembling,  in  singleness  of  your  heart, 
as  unto  Christ ;  not  with  eye  service,  as  men  pleasers,  but  as 
the  servants  of  Christ,  doing  the  will  of  Qpd  from  the  heart ; 
w'ith  good  will  doing  service,  as  to  the  Lord,  and  not  to  men, 
knowing  that  whatsoever  good  thing  any  man  doeth,  the  same 
shall  he  receive  of  the  Lord,  whether  bond  or  free.  And,  ye 
masters,  do  the  same  things  unto  them,  forbearing  thn?atening, 
knowing  that  your  master  also  is  in  heaven  ;  neither  is  there 
respect  of  persons  with  him.  Eph.  vi.  5 — 9.  Society  is  a 
whole,  formed  by  infinite  wisdom,  with  all  its  functions  and 
functionaries.  No  honest  calling  is  degraded,  or  degrading. 
Each  member  of  the  social  compact  is  to  be  honoured  and 
esteemed,  while  he  continues  to  move  cheerfully  and  usefully 
in  his  proper  sphere."  And  so  the  advocates  of  slavery 
passim. 

(3.)  That  the  inspired  teachers  of  the  Christian  religion 
admitted  slaveholders  into  the  Christian  church,  in  the  same 
manner  as  others,  and  regarded  them,  while  holding  slaves, 
as  in  every  respect  in  good  standing.*  This  is  insisted  on 
everywhere  by  the  advocates  of  slavery,  as  showing  that  the 
apostles  did  not  regard  slavehoiding  as  a  sin,  or  as  in  any  way 

•  See  the  Princeton  Repertory,  1836,  p.  277. 


SCRIPTUIL\L    VIEWS    OF    SI^^^VERV.  233 

inconsistent  with  the  existence  of  true  piety,  and  with  pos- 
s«'ssing  all  the  proper  qualifications  of  church  membership. 
Thus  the  Princeton  Reviewer  says,  "  Did  they  [Christ  and  the 
apostles]  shut  their  eyes  to  the  enormity  of  a  great  offence 
between  God  and  man  ?  Did  they  temporize  with  a  heinous 
evil,  because  it  was  common  and  popular?  Did  ihci/  ctibnil 
the  perpetrators  of  the  greatest  erij)ies  to  the  Christian  eom- 
munion?  Who  will  undertake  to  charge  the  blessed  Re- 
deemer and  his  inspired  followers  with  such  connivance  at  sin, 
and  such  fellowship  with  iniquity  ?"  This  argument  is  stated 
with  much  force  by  Dr.  Fuller : — 

♦'  The  demonstration  furnished  on  this  question,  I  need  only 
mention ;  it  is  the  baptism  by  the  apostles  of  slaveholders, 
and  the  admission  of  them  into  the  churches.  Before  baptism 
they  required  men  to  repent,  that  is,  to  abandon  all  their  sins; 
yet  they  baptized  masters  holding  slaves.  They  fenced  the 
Lord's  table  with  the  most  solemn  warnings  that  men  should 
examine  themselves,  and  that  to  eat  and  drink  unworthily  was 
to  eat  and  drink  condenmation  ;  yet  they  admitted  to  the  sup- 
per masters  holding  slaves.  They  declared  that  'without 
hohness  no  man  could  see  the  Lord,'  and  at  once  condemned 
all  the  darling  sins  of  the  day.  Idolatry  was  interwoven  with 
the  very  elements  of  society,  yet  they  spared  it  not,  but  at 
the  sight  of  'a  city  given  to  idolatry'  their  'spirits  were 
stirred,'  and  they  told  the  people  plainly  that  they  worshipped 
devils.  They  abhorred  the  thought  that  'the  temple  of  God 
could  have  any  agreement  with  idols  ;'  and  stigmatized  idola- 
try as  one  of  the  'works  of  the  flesh,'  'as  to  which,'  said 
they,  '  we  tell  you  before,  as  we  have  told  you  in  times  past, 
that  they  which  do  such  things  shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom 
of  God.'  Voluptuousness  rt^gned  in  city  and  country,  and 
even  philosophers  considered  it  innocent ;  but  the  heralds  of 
Christ  assailed  it  everywhere.  In  a  word,  going  in  the 
strength  of  the  Lord  God,  they,  with  lion-hearted  dauniless- 
ness,  struck  at  and  ^^arred  with  the  superstitions  of  the  (ren- 
tiics  and  the  prejudices  of  the  Jews.     They  attacked  the 

20^ 


234  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

passions  of  the  vulgar  and  the  pride  of  the  noble.  They 
defied  the  priests,  and  confronted  the  Sanhedrim,  and  thun- 
dered before  unjust  and  licentious  princes,  '  of  righteousness, 
and  temperance,  and  judgment  to  come.'  Yet  as  to  slavery, 
they  not  only  never  forbade  it,  but  received  believing  masters 
into  the  churches,  and  declared  them  'faithful  and  beloved,' 
brethren  in  Christ  Jesus."* 

(4.)  It  is  said  by  those  who  maintain  that  slavery  is  not 
inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  the  New  Testament,  that  the 
apostles  "legislated"  for  it  in  the  same  way  as  they  did  for 
the  other  allowed  relations  of  hfe.  They  recognised  the  rela- 
tion of  master  and  slave  in  the  same  manner  as  they  did  that 
of  husband  and  wife,  and  parent  and  child,  and  monarch  and 
subject,  and  in  language  that  implied  no  more  disapprobation 
in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other.  They  prescribed  the  duties 
of  both,  as  if  the  relation  was  not  improper.  It  is  argued 
further,  that  they  never  "  legislated"  for  a  sinful  relation  ;  that 
they  never  made  similar  laws  in  reference  to  pol3'gamy  or 
concubinage  ;  and  that  the  fact  that  they  thus  made  laws  con- 
templating this  relation,  showed  that  they  could  not  have 
designed  to  express  disapprobation  of  the  system.  This  ar- 
gument is  much  urged  by  the  advocates  of  the  system,  and  is 
deemed  by  them  conclusive  on  the  point.  In  support  of  it, 
they  refer  to  such  passages  of  the  New  Testament  as  Eph. 
v.22,33;  vi.  1—9;  Col.  iii.  18—25;  iv.  1 ;  1  Tim.  vi.  1—5. 

(5.)  It  is  urged  that  to  suppose  slavery  to  be  a  sin,  and  yet 
to  suppose  that  Christ  and  the  apostles  failed  to  denounce  it 
as  such,  is  a  gross  reflection  on  their  character,  and  entirely 
inconsistent  with  their  moral  honesty.  This  argument  is 
urged  with  great  zeal  by  the  Princeton  Reviewer,  as  being 
decisive  in  the  case.  Thus  the  author  of  the  article  in  the 
Repertory  for  1836  says  on  this  point:  "It  requires  no 
argument  to  show  that  sin  ought  to  be  at  once  abandoned. 
Every  thing,  therefore,  is  conceded  which   the   abolitionists 

*  Dr.  FuUer's  Letters  to  Dr.  Way  land,  pp.  196,  197. 


SCRirTURAL    Vir.WS    OF    SLAVKRV.  235 

need  require,  when  it  is  granted  that  slaveholding  is  in  it- 
self a  crime.  But  how  can  this  assumption  be  reconciled 
with  llie  conduct  of  Christ  and  the  apostles  ?  Did  they  shut 
their  eyes  to  the  enormities  of  a  great  offence  against  God 
and  man  ?  Did  they  temporize  with  a  heinous  evil,  because 
it  was  common  and  popular  ?  Did  they  abstain  from  even 
exhoriinir  masters  to  emancipate  their  slaves,  ihoun^h  an  ino- 
perative duty,  from  fear  of  consequences  ?  Did  they  admit 
the  perpetrators  of  the  greatest  crimes  to  the  Christian  com- 
munion ?  Who  will  undertake  to  charge  the  biassed  Re- 
deemer and  his  inspired  followers  with  such  connivance  at 
sin,  and  such  fellowship  with  iniquity  ?  Were  drunkards, 
murderers,  liars,  and  adulterers  thus  treated?  Were  they 
passed  over  without  even  an  exhortation  to  forsake  their  sins? 
Were  they  recognised  as  Christians  ?  It  cannot  be  that 
slaveholding  belongs  to  the  same  category  with  these  crimes ; 
and  to  assert  the  contrary',  is  to  assert  that  Christ  is  the  minis- 
ter of  sin."  And  again,  on  pages  2?53,  284,  he  urges  the 
argument  with  renewed  energy  :  "  Let  us,  however,  consider 
the  force  of  the  ariiument  as  stated  above.  It  amounts  to  this. 
Christ  and  his  apostles  thought  slaveholding  a  great  crime, 
but  they  abstained  from  saying  so  for  fear  of  the  conse- 
quences. The  very  statement  of  the  argument,  in  its  naked 
form,  is  its  refutation.  These  holy  men  did  not  refrain  from 
condemning  sin  from  a  regard  to  consequences.  They  did 
not  hesitate  to  array  against  the  religion  which  they  taught, 
the  strongest  passions  of  men.  Nor  did  they  content  them- 
selves with  denouncing  the  general  principles  of  evil;  they 
condemned  its  special  manifestations.  They  did  not  simply 
forbid  intemperate  sensual  indulgence,  and  leave  it  to  their 
hearers  to  decide  what  did  or  what  did  not  come  under  that 
name.  They  declared  that  no  fornicator,  no  adulterer,  no 
drunkard  could  be  admitted  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
They  did  not  hesitate,  even  when  a  little  band,  a  hundred 
and  twenty  souls,  to  place  themselves  in  direct  and  irrecon- 
cilable opposition  to  the  whole  polity,  civil  and  religious,  of 


236  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

the  Jewish  state.  It  will  hardly  be  maintained  that  slavery- 
was,  at  that  time,  more  intimately  interwoven  with  the  insti- 
tutions of  society  than  idolatry  was.  It  entered  into  the 
arrangements  of  every  family ;  of  every  city  and  province, 
and  of  the  whole  Roman  empire.  The  emperor  was  the 
Pontifex  Maximus  ;  every  department  of  the  state,  civil  and 
military,  was  pervaded  by  it.  It  was  so  united  with  the 
fabric  of  the  government  that  it  could  not  be  removed  with- 
out effecting  a  revolution  in  all  its  parts.  The  apostles 
knew  this.  They  knew  that  to  denounce  polytheism  was  to 
array  against  them  the  whole  power  of  the  state.  Their 
divine  Master  had  distinctly  apprised  them  of  the  result.  He 
told  them  that  it  would  set  the  father  against  the  son,  and 
the  son  against  the  father ;  the  mother  against  the  daughter, 
and  the  daughter  against  the  mother ;  and  that  a  man's  ene- 
mies should  be  those  of  his  own  household.  He  said  that 
he  came  not  to  bring  peace,  but  a  sword,  and  that  such  would 
be  the  opposition  to  his  followers,  that  whosoever  killed  them, 
would  think  he  did  God  service.  Yet  in  view  of  these  cer- 
tain consequences  the  apostles  did  denounce  idolatry,  not 
merely  in  principle,  but  by  name.  The  result  was  precisely 
what  Christ  had  foretold.  The  Romans,  tolerant  of  every 
other  religion,  bent  the  whole  force  of  their  wisdom  and  arms 
to  extirpate  Christianity.  The  scenes  of  bloodshed  which, 
century  after  century,  followed  the  introduction  of  the  gospel, 
did  not  induce  the  followers  of  Christ  to  keep  back  or  modify 
the  truth.  They  adhered  to  their  declaration  that  idolatry 
w^as  a  heinous  crime.  And  they  were  right.  We  expect 
similar  conduct  of  our  missionaries.  We  do  not  expect  them 
to  refrain  from  denouncing  the  institutions  of  the  heathen,  as 
sinful,  because  they  are  popular,  or  intimately  interwoven 
with  society.  The  Jesuits,  who  adopted  this  plan,  forfeited 
the  confidence  of  Christendom,  without  making  converts  of 
the  heathen.  It  is,  therefore,  perfectly  evident  that  the 
authors  of  our  religion  were  not  withheld,  by  these  consider- 
ations, from  declaring  slavery  to  be   unlawful.     If  they  did 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVERY.  237 

abstain  from  this  declaration,  as  is  admitted,  it  must  liavo 
been  because  they  did  not  consider  it  as  in  itself  a  crime. 
No  other  solution  of  their  conduct  is  consistent  with  their 
truth  or  fidelity.'' 

This  argument  seems  to  have  had  a  peculiar  value  in  tlie 
eyes  of  the  conductors  of  that  periodical.  After  having  slum- 
bered unnoticed  and  unappreciated  for  some  eight  years  on 
Ha  pages,  it  was  deemed  important  that  so  valuable  a  speci- 
men of  reasoning  should  not  be  lost  to  the  generation  that 
was  about  to  come  on  the  stage,  and  that  the  world  should  at 
least  be  reminded  that  there  was  such  a  cogent  argument 
which  might  be  urged  in  favour  of  the  system  ;  and  accord- 
ingly it  is  reproduced,  somewhat  enlarged,  though  with  no 
additional  strength,  in  the  same  work  for  October,  1844.*  In 
that  article  the  reviewer  urges  the  point  before  us  with  aug- 
mented zeal.  He  says,  "They  [that  is  the  abohtionists] 
say,  in  substance,  that  the  apostles  concealed  the  truth,  that 
they  were  afraid  of  consequences,  that  they  acted  from  policy, 
or  motives  of  expediency.  Our  answer  to  this  is,  1.  That 
such  conduct  would  be  immoral.  For  men  professing  to  be 
inspired  teachers  of  truth  and  duty,  to  appear  among  men 
living  in   the  daily  commission  of  'a  heinous  crime  in  the 

•  Why,  after  the  lapse  of  bo  many  years,  it  was  deemed  necessary  to 
republish  it  substantially  in  the  same  periodical,  is  not  stated.  The  cha- 
racter of  the  article,  l>eing  the  undisguised  production  of  a  northern  man, 
was  such  as  not  soon  to  be  forgotten  at  the  Xorth ;  and  having  been  re- 
pv^lished  in  a  pamphlet  form  at  Pittsburgh  by  southern  gentlemen,  it 
seemed  scarcely  necessary  to  refresh  the  memory  of  those  who  reside  at 
the  South  with  the  fact  of  its  existence.  It  is  one  of  the  characteristics 
of  the  thcolnsy  at  Princeton,  that  it  never  changes ;  and  perhaps  the  ob- 
ject of  the  republication  was  to  certify  to  the  world  that  its  views  of  slavery 
are  as  changeless  as  it,s  divinity.  Whatever  may  have  l>een  the  motive, 
however,  its  republication  without  material  change,  and  with  no  additional 
strength,  may  be  regarded  as  a  sign  that  in  the  apprehension  of  the  con- 
ductors of  the  Princeton  Re|>ertory,  the  argument  which  palliates  slavery 
is  exhausted. 


238  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

sight  of  God,'  and  never  once  tell  them  it  was  a  crime  ;  to  allow 
them  to  go  on  in  this  course  of  iniquity,  to  the  ruin  of  their 
souls,  is  a  supposition  which  shocks  the  moral  sense.  No- 
thing but  the  explicit  declaration  that  slaveholding  was  a 
crime,  and  immediate  emancipation  a  duty,  could  satisfy  the 
demands  of  conscience,  in  such  a  case.  Men  were  constantly 
coming  to  the  apostle  to  ask,  what  they  must  do  to  be  saved, 
what  God  would  have  them  to  do;  and  if  they  did  not  answer 
those  questions  openly  and  honestly,  according  to  their  real 
convictions,  they  were  bad  men.  Such  conduct  in  any  other 
case  would  by  all  men  be  pronounced  immoral.  Suppose 
our  missionaries  among  the  heathen,  in  teaching  the  gospel, 
should,  from  motives  of  policy,  abstain  from  telling  them  the 
truth,  should  fail  intentionally  to  inform  them  that  idolatry, 
adultery,  child-murder,  or  any  like  crime,  was  a  grievous  sin 
in  the  sight  of  God,  would  not  all  the  world  pronounce  them 
unfaithful  ?  Do  not  abolitionists  condemn  southern  ministers 
for  not  explicitly  stating  that  slaveholding  is  a  crime,  and  im- 
mediate emancipation  a  duty  ?  Would  they  not  view  with 
abhorrence  the  minister  who  really  coincided  with  them  in 
his  views,  and  yet  through  fear  of  consequences,  held  his 
peace,  and  allow  his  hearers  to  sin  on  in  security  ?  Would 
not,  on  the  contrary,  the  world  ring  with  their  shouts  in 
praise  of  the  man  who,  in.  fidelity  to  God,  and  in  love  to  man, 
should  openly  preach  the  truth  on  these  points  to  a  congrega- 
tion of  slaveholders,  even  though  it  brought  sudden  destruc- 
tion on  his  own  head  ?  We  fear,  however,  we  are  only 
obscuring  the  clearness  of  a  self-evident  truth,  by  multiplying 
illustrations.  The  conduct  of  the  apostles  is  absolutely  irre- 
concilable with  moral  honesty,  if  they  believed  slaveholding 
to  be  a  heinous  crime  in  the  sight  of  God.  They  were  either 
bad  men,  or  they  were  not  abolitionists,  in  the  American 
sense  of  that  word.  2.  But  again,  the  course  ascribed  to  the 
apostles  in  reference  to  slavery,  is  not  only  base  in  itself, 
but  it  is  contrary  to  their  conduct  in  all  analogous  cases. 
Slaveholding  is  the  only  sin  famihar  to  those  to  whom  they 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  239 

preached,  and  about  whicli  they  wrote,  that  they  failed  to 
denounce.  Idolatry  was  a  crime  which  was  more  prevalent 
than  slaveholding;  more  implicated  in  all  the  institutions  of 
life,  in  support  of  which  stronger  passions  were  engaged, 
and  in  attacking  which  they  could  not  look  for  the  support 
of  one-half  or  two-thirds  of  the  conmiunity.  Yet  idolatry 
they  everywhere  proclaimed  to  be  a  crime,  inconsistent  with 
Christianity  and  a  bar  to  salvation.  The  consequence  was, 
the  apostles  were  persecuted  even  to  death.  It  is  not  true  that 
they  kept  back  the  truth  for  fear  of  suffering.  They  called 
God  to  witness  that  they  declared  the  whole  counsel  of  God, 
and  were  clear  of  every  man's  blood.  It  is  said  that  the 
cases  of  idolatry  and  slavery  are  not  parallel,  because  it  was 
more  dangerous  to  denounce  the  latter  than  the  former.  Ad- 
mitting the  fact,  is  the  degree  of  danger  attending  the  dis- 
charge of  a  duty  the  measure  of  its  obligation  ?  Must  a 
religious  teacher,  in  explaining  the  way  of  salvation,  keep 
back  the  truth — one  of  the  most  efl^ectaal  methods  of  teaching 
falsehood — because  he  may  incur  danger  by  inculcating  it  ? 
We  do  not,  however,  believe  the  fact.  We  believe  that  the 
apostles  might  have  taught  that  slaveholding  is  a  sin,  with  far 
less  danger  than  that  which  they  incurred  by  teaching  that 
what  the  heathtn  sacrificed  they  sacrificed  to  devils.  We 
need  not  conceive  of  their  adopting  the  system  of  agitation, 
and  the  whole  'moral  machinery'  of  modern  times.  They 
adorned  no  such  course  with  regard  to  idolatry.  But  they 
might  doubtless,  with  comparative  safety,  have  told  slave- 
holders that  it  was  their  duty  to  emancipate  their  slaves. 
They  could  as  well  have  enjoined  them  to  set  their  servants 
free,  as  to  command  them  to  render  to  them  what  is  just  and 
equal.  Many  men,  without  any  great  exhibition  of  courage, 
have  taught  and  do  still  teach  the  moral  evil  of  slaveholding 
in  the  midst  of  slaveholders.  And  even  now,  any  man  who, 
in  a  meek,  sincere,  and  benevolent  spirit,  should  say  to  south- 
ern planters,  that  the  relation  they  sustain  to  their  slaves  is 
contrary'  to  the  will  of  God,  and  incompatible  with  their  own 


240  AN    INQUIRY    INTO   THE 

salvation,  would  meet  with  no  greater  disturbance  than  the 
duakers  have  experienced  in  making  their  annual  testimony 
against  slavery. 

"  The  course  ascribed  to  the  apostles  is  not  only  incon- 
sistent with  fidelity,  and  contrary  to  their  uniform  practice, 
but  it  is  moreover  opposed  to  the  conduct  of  the  messengers 
of  God  in  all  ages.  The  ancient  prophets  never  failed  to 
reprove  the  people  for  their  sins,  and  to  exhort  them  to  repent- 
ance, no  matter  how  strong  the  attachment  of  their  hearers  to 
their  iniquity,  or  how  powerful  the  interests  leagued  in  its 
support.  Elijah  did  not  fail  to  denounce  the  worship  of  Beial, 
though  Ahab  and  Jezebel  were  determined  to  kill  the  pro- 
phets of  God  ;  nor  did  John  the  Baptist  fail  to  tell  Herod  that 
it  was  not  lawful  for  him  to  have  his  brother's  wife." 

(5.)  Another  consideration  relied  on  is,  that  the  apostles 
nowhere  exhort  masters  to  liberate  their  slaves ;  they  speak 
of  the  relation  as  one  of  comparatively  little  account,  and  as 
one  attended  with  few  disadvantages.  Thus  the  Princeton 
Reviewer  says, 

"The  subject  is  hardly  alluded  to  by  Christ  in  any  of  his 
personal  instructions.  The  apostles  refer  to  it,  not  to  pronounce 
upon  it  as  a  question  of  morals,  but  to  prescribe  the  relative 
duties  of  masters  and  slaves.  They  caution  those  slaves  who 
have  believing  or  Christian  masters,  not  to  despise  them  be- 
cause they  were  on  a  perfect  religious  equaUty  with  them,  but 
to  consider  the  fact  that  their  masters  were  their  brethren,  as 
an  additional  reason  for  obedience.  It  is  remarkable  that  there 
is  not  even  an  exhortation  to  masters  to  liberate  their  slaves, 
much  less  is  it  urged  as  an  imperative  and  immediate  duty. 
They  are  commanded  to  be  kind,  merciful,  and  just;  and  to 
remember  that  they  have  a  Master  in  heaven.  Paul  repre- 
sents this  relation  as  of  comparatively  little  account.  *  Let 
every  man  abide  in  the  same  calling  wherein  he  was  called. 
Art  thou  called  being  a  servant,  (or  slave,)  care  not  for  it ; 
though,  should  the  opportunity  of  freedom  be  presented,  em- 
brace it.     These   external   relations,  however,  are  of  little 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  241 

importance,  for  every  Cliristinn  is  a  freeman  in  the  liii^hest 
and  best  sense  of  the  word,  and  at  the  same  time  is  under  the 
stroniTest  bonds  to  Christ.'    1  Cor.  vii.  20 — 22." 

If  the  relation  is  a  mild  one,  and  on  the  whole  not  very  un- 
desirable, and  if  masters  are  never  exhorted  to  disturb  it  by 
any  act  of  voluntary  emancipation,  it  seems  to  be  inferred  that 
the  iSew  Testament  is  not  inimical  to  it,  and  that  it  is  an  insti- 
tution which  it  is  desirable  to  perpetuate  for  the  best  interests 
of  society. 

(6.)  As  a  final  argument  to  show  that  the  apostles  were  not 
hostile  to  slavery,  and  that  the  institution  is  not  opposed  by 
Christianity,  an  appeal  is  made  to  the  case  of  Onesimus, 
referred  to  in  the  epistle  to  Philemon.  The  argument  relied 
on  is,  that  Onesimus  was  a  slave  ;  that  he  had  escaped  from 
his  master,  and  was  a  runaway  ;  that  he  was  converted  under 
Paul;  that  he  sent  him  back  without  any  wish  or  concurrence 
on  the  part  of  Onesimus,  and  with  a  view  that  he  might  re- 
main as  a  slave  with  Philemon.  It  is  inferred  from  these 
supposed  facts,  (1.)  That  Paul  regarded  the  relation  as  proper 
and  desirable.  (2.)  That  it  is  wrong  for  a  slave  to  leave  his 
master  without  his  consent.  (3.)  That  the  effect  of  con- 
version should  be  to  make  a  runaway  slave  willing  to  return 
to  a  state  of  bondage.  (4.)  That  it  is  a  duty  to  send  back*a 
runaway  slave  to  his  master ;  and,  (o.)  That  the  act  of  Paul 
in  restoring  Onesimus  to  his  master,  fairly  proves  that  he 
supposed  the  relation  was  to  be  perpeluai.* 

It  is  on  such  arguments  as  these  that  those  who  maintain 
that  slavery  is  not  inconsistent  with  Christianity,  rely.  It  is 
of  importance,  therefore,  to  examine  the  farce  of  this  reason- 
ing, and  to  inquire  whether  the  Saviour  and  his  apostles 
meant  to  represent  slavery  as  a  desirable  system  for  the 
best  interests  of  society  ;  as  a  system  which  is  congenial 
with  the  gospel  which  they  sought  to  propagate;  as  one 
which  the  gospel  would  serve  to  extend,  and  as  so  destitute 

•  Compare  Dr.  Fuller's  Letters  to  Dr.  Way  land,  p.  195. 
21 


242  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

of  the  elements  of  evil,  that  they  would  desire  to  see  it  per- 
petuated in  connection  with  the  Christian  religion.  I  shall, 
therefore,  examine  these  points  at  some  length,  with  a  view 
to  ascertain  the  exact  relation  of  Christianity  to  slavery,  and 
particularly  to  the  system  as  it  exists  in  our  own  country.  If 
Christianity  would  sustain  and  perpetuate  that  system,  it  may 
be  assumed  that  the  institution  is  not  evil ;  if  it  would  not,  it 
is  not  a  very  forced  conclusion  that  it  is  to  be  regarded  as  sin- 
ful and  wrong. 

I.  There  is  no  evidence  that  Christ  himself  ever  came 

IN  CONTACT  with  Sl AVERY. 

The  first  inquiry  which  meets  us  here  is,  whether  there  is 
evidence  that  Christ  himself  ever  came  in  contact  with  slavery. 
If  he  did,  and  regarded  it  as  wrong,  in  the  same  sense  as  hy- 
pocrisy and  sensuahty  are  wrong,  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  he 
would  have  denounced  it  in  the  same  way  as  he  did  those 
things  ;  and  if  he  did  not  express  his  disapprobation  of  it,  it 
seems  to  be  a  fair  inference  that  he  did  not  regard  it  as  wrong. 
If,  however,  he  never  came  in  contact  with  it,  nothing  can  be 
safely  argued  in  favour  of  it  from  his  silence,  any  more  than 
it  can  be  inferred  that  he  was  favourable  to  the  sports  of  the 
amphitheatre  at  Rome,  or  to  the  orgies  which  were  celebrated 
in  honour  of  Bacchus,  or  to  the  claims  to  inspiration  of  the 
oracles  of  Dodona  or  Delphi.  We  can  only  argue  in  respect 
to  his  sentiments  on  such  points,  from  the  principles  which  he 
laid  down  of  a  general  character,  or  from  the  incidental 
remarks  which  he  made  when  discoursing  on  other  topics. 

In  endeavouring,  then,  to  ascertain  the  views  of  the  Saviour 
on  this  subject,  I  would  make  the  following  remarks : — 

(1.)  There  is  no  conclusive  evidence  that  he  ever  came  in 
contact  with  slavery  at  all.  If  the  train  of  argument  which 
has  been  pursued  in  regard  to  the  tendency  of  the  Mosaic  in- 
stitutions is  well-founded,  there  is  every  probability  that 
slavery  had  ceased  in  the  Hebrew  commonwealth  long  before 
the  advent  of  the  Saviour.     There  is  no  proof  which  I  have 


SCRIPTl'iL\L    MEWS    OF    SLAVERY.  243 

seen  referred  to  from  any  contemporary  writer,  that  it  existed 
in  Judea  in  his  time  at  all ;  and  there  is  no  evidence  from  the 
New  Testament  that  he  ever  came  in  contact  with  it.  The 
only  instance  that  is  ever  referred  to  of  the  kind,  and  the  only 
one  that  can  be,  is  the  case  of  the  Roman  centurion  who  had 
a  servant  sick  at  Capernaum.  Matt.  viii.  5,  seq.  But  this 
case  does  not  prove  the  point  for  which  it  is  adduced ;  for  (a) 
the  terms  which  are  used  as  descriptive  of  the  case,  do  not 
prove  it.  The  centurion  himself  applies  to  the  sick  servant 
at  home  the  term  o  ?tats — pais,  (Matt.  viii.  o,)  which  is  a  word 
much  too  general  to  demonstrate  that  he  was  a  slave.  It  was 
rarely  applied  to  a  slave  at  all,  and  when  it  was,  it  was  only  as 
the  term  boi/  now  is  in  the  slaveholding-  states  of  this  Union. 
The  term  which  the  centurion  uses  in  ver.  9,  implying 
that  he  had  servants  under  him,  also,  does  not  demonstrate 
that  they  were  slaves  :  "  And  I  say  to  my  servant — t^  6ov?.9 
— do  this,  and  he  doeth  it."  This  word,  as  has  been  shown, 
(Ch.  III.)  is  also  too  o-tmcral  to  make  it  certain  that  he  refers  to 
slaves.  If  it  should  be  said  that  it  is  probable  that  this  sick 
man  was  a  slave,  still  it  is  obvious  to  reply,  that  what  is  neces- 
sary to  the  argument  derived  from  the  fact  that  the  Saviour 
did  not  express  disapprobation  of  the  system,  is,  that  he 
actually  came  in  contact  icith  a  c«sp,  and  did  not  condemn  ft. 
Even  then  it  might  be  questioned  whether  his  not  expressing 
a  sentence  of  condemnation  on  the  system  could  be  construed 
as  an  argument  that  he  did  not  disapprove  of  it ;  but  in  order 
that  the  argument  should  have  any  force,  it  is  necessary  to 
know  that  he  actually  encountered  slavery,  [b)  It  may  be 
urged  further,  that  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  a  Roman 
officer,  such  as  the  centurion  was,  would  have  a  slave  to  ac- 
company him.  That  he  would  have  a  servant  of  some  kind 
is  not  improbable,  for  it  is  still  common  in  the  East  for  oflicers 
in  an  army,  and  even  for  the  ordinary  cavalry,  to  have  ser- 
vants to  attend  them,  to  wait  upon  them,  and  to  take  care  of 
their  horses.  But  these  are  not  commonly  slaves.  They  are 
persons  in  the  employ  of  the  government,  zissigning  such 


244  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

persons  to  the  use  of  the  army,  to  be  paid  by  the  government, 
(c)  Considering  the  facihiies  for  escaping  in  passing  through 
foreign  countries  on  a  march,  it  is  hardly  probable  that  the 
attendants  on  Roman  officers  would  be  slaves.  At  all  events, 
there  is  not  the  slightest  proof  that  this  man  was  a  slave,  and 
if  not,  then  there  is  not  the  slightest  proof  that  the  Saviour 
ever  came  in  contact  with  slavery  at  all,  either  in  public  or 
in  private  life.  The  only  evidence  which  I  have  seen  that 
there  were  any  slaves  in  Palestine  about  the  time  of  the 
Saviour,  is  the  statement  of  Josephus,  (Hist.  19,)  that  "  King 
Agrippa  exhibited  at  one  time  in  Judea  seven  hundred  pair  of 
gladiators."  But  (1.)  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  Saviour 
ever  witnessed  any  such  scene,  nor  is  it  probable  that  he  did. 
(2.)  If  his  silence  in  such  a  case  may  be  construed  as  a  proof 
that  he  did  not  disapprove  of  slavery,  it  may  for  the  same 
reason  be  construed  as  a  proof  that  he  did  not  disapprove  of 
gladiatorial  exhibitions. 

(2.)  Nothing  then  can  be  inferred  from  the  silence  of  the 
Saviour  on  this  subject.  It  was  by  no  means  his  method  to 
go  out  of  his  way  to  denounce  sins  which  prevailed  in  other 
parts  of  the  earth,  however  great  they  might  be,  or  however 
much  it  may  be  inferred  that  he  disapproved  of  them.  He  con- 
demned the  sins  of  his  own  age  and  country  as  he  encountered 
them,  and  laid  down  great  principles  of  truth  which  would 
be  of  easy  application  to  all  others  as  his  gospel  should  spread. 
But  to  infer  that  he  approved  of  every  thing  on  which  he 
maintained  silence,  or  which  he  did  not  expressly  condemn, 
would  be  a  violation  of  all  the  principles  by  which  we  judge 
of  a  religious  teacher -or  philosopher,  and  would  be  doing 
him  manifest  injustice.  Are  we  to  infer  that  he  approved  of 
the  sports  in  the  amphitheatre  at  Rome ;  of  the  conflicts  of 
gladiators,  and  the  bloody  struggles  between  captives  in  war 
and  wild  beasts  ?  Are  we  to  infer  that  he  approved  of  the 
scenes  of  the  Roman  Saturnalia,  or  the  modes  of  worship  on 
the  Acropolis  at  Corinth,  because  he  was  silent  in  regard  to 
them  ?     To  hold  him  to  this,  would  be  a  violation  of  every 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  245 

rule  of  right ;  yet  they  in  Tact  do  no  less,  who  in  for  that,  bo- 
cause  he  did  not  denounce  slavery,  therefore  he  was  not  unfa- 
vourable to  the  system. 

(3.)  lie  never  uttered  a  word  which  can  be  construed  in 
favour  of  slavery.  It  is  remarkable  that  the  advocates  of 
the  system  never  appeal  to  any  thini^  that  fell  from  his  lips 
in  his  instructions;  to  any  principle  or  doctrine  that  he  laid 
down  in  his  rehgion,  in  defence  of  the  institution.  If  there 
were  nothing  else  in  the  world  than  the  discourses  of  Jesus 
Christ  to  form  the  opinions  and  direct  the  conduct  of  men,  no 
one  would  ever  dream  that  such  a  system  was  desirable  or 
proper.  In  his  discourses,  there  is  not  a  sentiment  which 
can  be  tortured  by  any  ingenuity  of  exegesis  into  an  ap- 
proval of  the  system.  No  one,  under  the  fair  influence  of 
the  doctrines  which  he  laid  down,  ever  yet  made  a  man  a 
slave  ;  no  one  ever  supposed  that  he  could  justify  such  an 
act  by  any  thing  that  the  Saviour  ever  did  or  taught.  Not 
even  a  hint  can  be  found  in  all  that  he  said,  on  which  a 
man  who  weis  about  to  embark  in  the  slave  trade,  or  who 
designed  to  raise  slaves  for  sale,  or  who  meant  to  purchase  a 
slave,  or  who  meant  to  keep  one  already  in  his  possession, 
could  rely  to  sanction  his  course.  Never  were  any  discourses 
or  writings  in  the  world  more  entirely  free  from  any  thing 
which  would  lend  such  a  sanction,  than  the  recorded  dis- 
oourses  of  the  Redeemer. 

(4.)  While  this  was  true — true  that  he  in  no  way  inter- 
meddled with  the  system  any  more  than  he  did  with  the 
regulations  of  the  Roman  Coliseum,  or  tlie  laws  respecting 
the  harem  in  a  Persian  court,  it  is  also  true  that  he  laid  down 
principles  which  are  entirely  inconsistent  with  slavery,  and 
which  would  tend  to  its  rapid  abohtion.  In  another  part  of  this 
argument  from  the  New  Testament,  I  shall  have  occasion  to 
inquire  into  the  effect  of  Christianity  on  the  abolition  of  sla- 
very. At  present,  all  that  it  is  necessary  to  observe  is,  that 
there  are  fundamental  principles  laid  down  by  the  Saviour 
which  are  opposed  to  the  whole  system  of  slavery,  and  which 

21* 


246  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

it  is  necessary  constantly  to  violate  in  order  to  its  perpetuity. 
Among  those  principles  are  the  following: — 

(a)  The  doctrine  that  all  the  race  are  on  a  level  before  God  ; 
that  all  are  redeemed  by  the  same  blood ;  that  all  are  equally 
the  heirs  of  life  ;  that  all  are  moral  and  responsible  beings ; 
that  all  are  descended  from  the  same  parent.  The  instruc- 
tions of  the  Saviour  do  not  go  against  all  distinctions  in  life. 
They  recognise  the  relations  of  father  and  son ;  of  ruler  and 
subject ;  of  the  rich  and  poor,  as  those  which  are  not  incon- 
sistent with  his  grand  fundamental  position — that  in  the  matter 
of  redemption  all  men  are  on  a  level.  In  these  relations  all 
are  to  be  recognised  as  men  ;  as  capable  of  redemption ;  as 
free  moral  agents ;  and  no  one  by  nature  is  supposed  to  have 
any  priority  or  superiority  over  the  other.  But  slavery 
always  supposes  that  there  is  a  distinction  among  men  in  these 
respects — a  distinction  different  from  that  which  arises  from 
regarding  them  as  sustaining  the  relation  of  parent  and  child; 
as  qualified  to  govern  or  not,  and  as  fitted  for  difl?*erent  occu- 
pations of  hfe  where  all  may  be  free.  It  is  supposed  to  be 
such  a  distinction  in  nature  as  to  make  it  proper  that  one 
should  be  a  master  and  the  other  a  slave ;  that  one  should  be 
regarded  as  a  freeman,  and  the  other  '  a  chattel  and  a  thing ;' 
that  one  should  have  a  right  to  buy  and  sell,  and  that  the 
other  should  be  bought  and  sold.  It  is  impossible,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  that  the  advocate  of  slavery  should  regard 
all  men  as,  in  every  respect,  on  a  level  in  regard  to  re- 
demption. There  is  inevitably,  in  his  apprehension,  some 
reason,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  just  in  proportion  as  there 
is  any  reason  for  the  existence  of  slavery  at  all — why  the 
present  master  shoulc  be  the  master^  and  the  present  slave 
SHOULD  BE  the  slave ; — why  the  white  man  should  be  the 
master,  and  why  the  man  of  colour  should  be  the  slave.  Yet 
it  is  clear  that  this  view  of  the  matter  is  entirely  at  variance 
with  the  fundamental  doctrine  in  the  plan  of  redemption. 

ib)  Under  the  gospel,  and  in  accordance  with  its  principles, 
no  relation  was  to  exist,  which  would  be  inconsistent  with  the 


SCRIPTX^IL^L    VIEWS   OF    SLAV  TRY .  247 

honest  recoi^^ition  of  all  who  bore  the  Christian  name  and 
image  as  brethren.  They  were  to  be  regarded  as  Chris- 
tian brethren  in  all  respects,  and  there  was  to  be  nothing  in 
their  condition  which  would  make  the  application  of  the 
term  to  any  and  to  all  improper.  Matth.  xxiii.  8.  "  One 
is  your  master — xa>;yrrrj :  and  all  ye  are  brethren — 
frdiTfj  h*  iuflf  adf%.f(K  iatf.*  *  Ye  fl//;' — that  is,  'all  who  pro- 
fess to  be  my  followers — all  who  compose  the  true  church,  no 
matter  what  their  rank,  colour,  condition,  age.  There  is  to  be 
nothing  in  your  condition  or  relations  which  shall  be  incon- 
sistent with  the  fair  and  honest  application  of  the  word  bre- 
thren— aifX^oi.  Any  thing  which  would  not  allow  that,  would 
be  a  violation  of  the  principles  of  my  religion.'  This  is  the 
uniform  language  of  the  New  Testament.  Now,  the  employ- 
ment of  this  term  is  entirely  appropriate  in  ail  those  relations 
where  freedom  is  enjoyed.  There  is  nothing  to  hinder  its 
fair  use  when  the  rich  address  the  poor,  or  princes  their 
subjects,  or  preachers  their  people,  or  men  of  years  and  ex- 
perience those  who  are  just  entering  on  life.  But  there  is 
much  to  prevent  its  fair  use  when  applied  by  masters  to  their 
slaves,  or  still  more  by  slaves  to  their  masters.  It  eannot 
be  used  except  it  be  constructively  and  metaphorically,  by 
those  who  regard  their  slaves  as  chattels  and  as  property, 
and  who  have  the  constant  feeling  that  they  are  at  liberty  to 
sell  them  at  any  moment,  as  they  do  their  cattle.  To  apply 
the  term  brethren  to  those  who  are  slaves,  is  a  departure  from 
all  just  use  of  language,  and  is  a  mockery  of  the  feel- 
ings which  it  is  condescendingly  designed  to  soothe.  Does 
it  ever  occur  that  slaves  address  their  masters  in  this  manner ; 
and  would  they  be  allowed  to  do  so  ? 

*  It  Lb  remarkable  that  even  here  the  Saviour  is  careful  not  to  employ  a 
term  which  would  even  suggest  the  relation  of  master  and  slave.  He 
uses  the  term  xa^ryr^rr;^ — a  leader,  conductor  (Anfiihrer,  Anleiter,  Pat- 
tow :)  a  leader,  guide,  teacher,  master,  (^Robinson,  Lex.),  and  not  the  term 
expressive  of  the  relation  of  master,  in  contradistinction  from  a  servant  or 
Blare — Jttjytorijj.— 1  Tim.  \\.  1,  3;  Titus  iL  9;  1  Pet  ii.  18. 


243  AN   INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

(c)  One  of  the  great  and  leading  principles  of  the  religion 
of  the  Saviour  is  expressed  in  the  golden  rule:  "Whatso- 
ever ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to 
them  ;  for  this  is  the  law  and  the  prophets."  Matt.  vii.  12. 
This  rule  he  evidently  designed  should  be  incorporated  into 
his  religion  as  essential  to  the  system,  and  it  is  manifest  that 
nothing  inconsistent  with  the  fair  application  of  it  can  be  in 
accordance  with  the  spirit  of  Christianity.  Yet  its  bearing 
on  slavery  is  obvious.  Its  influence  in  securing  the  eman- 
cipation of  all  those  now  held  in  bondage,  if  fairly  applied, 
would  be  certain  and  inevitable.  (1)  No  one,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  this  rule,  ever  made  a  man  a  slave.  No  one  ever 
felt  that  in  tearing  him  away  from  his  home,  in  separating 
him  from  country  and  friends,  in  exposing  him  to  sale,  and  in 
dooming  him  to  perpetual  bondage  for  no  other  crime  than 
that  of  being 

«  Guilty  of  a  skin  not  coloured  like  his  own," 

he  was  doing  that  w^hich  he  would  wish  another  man  to 
do  to  him.  (2.)  No  one  in  exacting  from  another  unrequited 
toil,  or  feeding  him  on  coarse  fare,  or  clothing  him  with  coarse 
raiment,  far  inferior  to  what  he  himself  possesses,  or  in  de- 
priving him  of  the  privileges  of  reading  the  Bible,  or  of  rising 
in  political  life,  or  of  being  eligible  to  office,  ever  did  that 
which  he  would  wish  others  to  do  to  him.  (3.)  No  one  ever 
subjected  a  fellow-being  to  the  operation  of  the  laws  of  ser- 
vitude, as  they  exist  in  this  country,  by  the  fair  operation  of 
this  rule.  He  would  not  wash  any  one  to  subject  him  or  his 
children  to  the  operation  of  these  laws.  (4.)  It  may  be  added, 
that  few  or  none,  under  the  fair  operation  of  this  rule,  w^ould 
ever  continue  to  hold  another  in  slavery.  Those  cases  must  be 
exceedingly  rare  on  the  earth,  where  a  man  would  desire  that 
he  himself  should  be  in  the  condition  of  his  slave,  or  that, 
if  he  were  already  a  slave,  the  bonds  of  servitude  should  be 
riveted  perpetually  on  him.  Freedom  is  sweet  to  man;  and 
it  cannot  be  doubted  that  if  a  man  were  in  all  circumstances 


SCRirrURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAV  FRY.  219 

to  act  towards  those  under  liiin,  as  he  would  desire  to  be 
treated  if  in  their  places,  the  bonds  of  servitude  would  soon 
be  loosed. 

If  these  principles  are  correct,  then  it  is  clear  that  neither  the 
example  nor  the  silence  of  the  Saviour  can  never  be  referred 
to  as  sanctioning^  slavery.  It  is  one  of  the  plainest  of  all 
propositions,  that  if  we  had  had  only  his  instructions  and 
his  example  to  guide  us  in  this  matter,  slavery  would  never 
have  been  originated  ;  and  that  where  it  /i«(/ before  existed,  it 
would  soon  cease.  The  application  of  these  principles  to 
the  system  in  this  country,  as  we  shall  see  in  another  part 
of  the  argument,  would  inevitably  aboli:>h  the  system. 

II.  The  manner  in  which  the  Apostles  treated  the 

SUBJECT    OF    SlAVERV. 

§  1.  They  found  il  in  existence  tvhen  they  organized  churches 
out  of  the  limits  of  Judea. 

We  have  seen  above,  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  when  the 
Saviour  appeared,  slavery  in  any  form  existed  in  Judea,  and 
consequently  there  is  no  proof  that  he  ever  encountered  it. 
We  have  also  seen  that  his  silence  on  the  subject  cannot  be 
construed  as  any  evidence  that  he  did  not  disapprove  of  the 
system,  and  did  not  design  that  the  principles  of  his  religion 
should  abolish  it,  wherever  it  might  be  found.  It  is  of  gnat 
importance,  therefore,  to  inquire  how  his  apostles  treated  the 
system  when  they  encountered  it,  and  whether  the  manner  in 
which  they  met  it  can  be  construed  as  an  evidence  that  they 
regarded  it  as  a  good  institution,  and  as  one  which  it  was 
desirable  to  perpetuate  in  the  world. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  slavery  existed  in  the  countries 
to  which  they  went  to  preach  the  gospel,  and  that  they  often 
encountered  it,  and  were  called  to  act  in  view  of  it  in  organ- 
izing churches.  There  are  evidences  of  this,  as  we  shall 
see,  in  their  epistles;  and  from  what  is  known  of  the  condition 
of  the  Roman  empire  at  that  period,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that 


250  AN    INQUIRY    INTO   THE 

they  came  in  contact  with  it,  and  that  in  preaching  the  gospel 
they  would  be  called  to  address  those  who  sustained  the  Tela- 
tion  of  master  and  slave. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  enter  into  a  proof  that  slavery  abounded 
in  the  Roman  empire,  or  that  the  conditions  of  servitude  were 
very  severe  and  oppressive.  This  is  conceded  on  all  hands. 
If  any  one  desires  to  see  it  demonstrated  beyond  the  possibi- 
lity of  a  doubt,  he  may  consult  an  article  by  Professor  B.  B. 
Edwards,  in  the  American  Biblical  Repository  for  October, 
1835,  pp.  41 1 — 43G.  The  purpose  of  my  argument  does  not 
require  me  to  go  into  an  examination  of  this  point,  in  detail. 
All  that  the  argument  does  require,  whatever  conclusion  we 
may  reach  as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  apostles  treated  the 
subject,  is,  the  admission  of  the  fact  that  slavery  every- 
where abounded ;  that  it  existed  in  forms  of  great  severity 
and  cruelty  ;  that  it  involved  all  the  essential  claims  which  are 
now  made  by  masters  to  the  services  or  persons  of  slaves ; 
that  it  was  protected  by  civil  laws ;  that  the  master  had  the 
right  of  transferring  his  slaves  by  sale,  donation,  or  testa- 
ment ;  that  in  general  he  had  every  right  which  was  supposed 
to  be  necessary  to  perpetuate  the  system  ;  and  that  it  was 
impossible  that  the  early  preachers  of  Christianity  should  not 
encounter  this  system,  and  be  constr-ained  to  adopt  some  prin- 
ciples in  regard  to  the  proper  treatment  of  it. 

In  order  to  allow  to  those  who  suppose  that  slavery  is  sanc- 
tioned by  the  New  Testament,  and  that  the  conduct  of  the 
apostles  may  be  appealed  to  in  justification  of  the  system  as 
it  exists  in  this  country,  all  the  advantage  in  the  argument 
which  can  be  derived  from  the  actual  state  of  slavery  as  they 
found  it,  it  seems  necessary,  however,  to  advert  to  the  form 
in  which  slavery  was  found  when  they  preached  the  gospel. 
It  is  proper  to  concede  that  the  state  of  things  was  such  that 
they  must  have  encountered  it,  and  that  it  then  had  all  the 
features  of  cruelty,  oppression,  and  wrong  which  can  ever 
exist  to  make  it  repellant  to  any  of  the  feelings  of  humanity, 
or  revolting  to  the  principles  of  a  Christian.     It  is  fair  that 


SrRIPTlTR.\L    \1EWS    OF    SLAVERY.  251 

the  advocate  of  tlie  system  should  have  all  the  advantage 
which  can  be  derived  from  the  fact  that  the  apostles  found  it 
in  its  most  odious  forms,  and  in  such  circumstances  as  to  make 
it  proper  that  they  should  ragurd  and  treat  it  as  an  evil,  if 
Christianity  regards  it  as  such  at  all.  It  is  proper  that  it 
should  be  seen  that  their  method  of  treating  it  was  not  prompted 
by  the  fact  thai  it  was  of  so  mild  a  type  as  to  be  scarcely 
worthy  of  their  attention.  It  is  to  be  admitted  that  if  there  can 
be  wrongs  in  slaver}'  anywhere  which  should  rouse  the  spirit 
of  a  Christian  man,  they  existed  to  as  great  an  extent  in  the 
countries  where  the  apostles  propagated  the  gospel ;  that  if  the 
system  as  it  exists  in  our  own  land  is  contrary  to  the  spirit 
of  Christianity,  the  system  as  they  found  it  was  no  less  con- 
trary to  it ;  that  if  now,  in  any  of  its  forms  and  influences, 
and  in  any  of  the  means  adopted  to  perpetuate  it,  it  is  opposed 
to  the  gospel,  it  was  no  less  so  then  ;  that  if  it  can  be  regarded 
now  as  desirable  that  the  system  should  come  to  an  end,  it 
was  no  less  desirable  then;  and  that  if  Christians  now  should 
labour  to  bring  it  to  a  termination,  it  was  no  less  desirable  and 
proper  that  they  should  do  it  then.  This,  it  seems  to  me,  is 
all  that  the  advocate  of  slavery  can  ask  to  have  conceded  on 
this  point. 

The  features  of  slavery  in  the  Roman  empire,  so  far  as  it 
is  necessary  to  refer  to  them  to  illustrate  this  point,  were 
summarily  these  : — 

I.  Slavery  existed  generally  throughout  the  Roman  empire, 
and  the  number  of  slaves  was  very  great.  "  Some  rich  indi- 
viduals possessed  ten  thousand,  and  some  as  many  as  twenty 
thousand  of  their  R'How-creatures,"  who  were  held  as  slaves.* 
In  Italy,  it  was  computed  that  there  were  three  slaves  to  one 
freeman,  and  that  in  this  part  of  the  empire  alone  their  num- 
ber amounted  to  more  than  twenty  millions.  The  number, 
therefore,  throughout  the  Roman  empire  must  have  been  im- 
mensely great ;  and  if  so,  it  is  impossible  that  the  apostles 

•  Professor  B,  B.  Edwards. 


252  AN   INQUIRY   INTO    THE 

should  not  have  encountered  it.  Gibbon*  says  "that  the 
slaves  were  at  least  equal  in  number  to  the  free  inhabitants  of 
the  Roman  world.  The  total  amount  of  this  imperfect  calcu- 
lation [of  the  inhabitants  of  the  Roman  empire]  would  rise  to 
about  one  hundred  and  twenty  miUions."  Of  course,  accord- 
ing to  this,  the  number  of  slaves  could  not  have  been  less  than 
sixty  millions  in  the  Roman  empire,  at  about  the  time  when 
the  apostles  went  forth  to  preach  the  gospel.  Respecting  the 
number  held  by  individuals.  Gibbon  remarks,  (p.  26,)  that  "  it 
was  discovered  on  a  very  melancholy  occasion,  that  four  hun- 
dred slaves  were  maintained  in  a  single  palace  of  Rome.  The 
same  number  of  four  hundred  belonged  to  an  estate,  which  an 
African  widow,  of  very  private  condition,  resigned  to  her  son, 
while  she  reserved  to  herself  a  much  larger  share  of  her 
property.  A  freed  man,  under  the  reign  of  Augustus,  though 
his  fortune  had  suffered  great  losses  in  the  civil  wars,  left  be- 
hind him  three  thousand  six  hundred  yoke  of  oxen,  two  hun- 
dred and  fifty  thousand  head  of  smaller  cattle,  and,  what  was 
almost  included  in  the  description  of  cattle,  four  thousand  one 
hundred  and  sixteen  slaves."  "  Scaurus  possessed  above 
four  thousand  domestic,  and  as  many  rural  slaves.  In  the 
reign  of  Augustus,  a  freedman,  who  had  sustained  great  losses 
during  the  civil  wars,  left  four  thousand  one  hundred  and 
sixteen  slaves,  besides  other  property."  "  Slaves  always 
composed  a  great  part  of  the  movable  property  of  individuals, 
and  formed  a  chief  article  of  ladies'  dowries."  "  It  was 
fashionable  to  go  abroad  attended  by  a  large  number  of  slaves. 
Horacet  says,  "  habebat  saepe  ducentos,  saspe  decern  servos." 
Besides  the  domestic  and  agricultural  slaves,  there  were  the 
gladiators,  who  were  chiefly  slaves,  and  who  were  extremely 
numerous  at  different  periods.  Julius  Ca3sar  exhibited  at  one 
time  three  hundred  and  twenty  pairs.  Trajan  exhibited 
them  for  one  hundred  and  twenty-three  days,  in  the  course 

•  Dec.  and  Fall,  vol.  i.  p.  27,  ed.  New  York,  1829. 
\  Lib.  1,  Sat.  iii.  v.  11. 


STRIPTUHAL    VIKWS    OK    SLAVERY.  253 

of  which  ten  thousand  ij^Iailiators  fouijlit.  Chrysostoin  says, 
that  under  Theodosius  the  Cireat,  and  Arcadius,  some  persons 
had  two  or  three  liiousand  slaves.  From  the  time  of  Au- 
gustus, we  may  allow  three  slaves  to  one  freeman  ;  we  shall 
tlms  have  a  free  population  in  Italy  of  6,944,000,  and  of 
slaves  20,SV>,000;  total,  i>7,77r),0(X).* 

{"Z.)  The  methods  in  which  men  became  slaves,  in  the  Ro- 
man empire,  were  the  following  : — 

(a)  By  war.  This  was  almost  a  universal  custom.  In 
general,  prisoners  of  war  were  sold  as  soon  as  possible  after 
their  captivit}-.  "On  the  descent  of  the  Romans  upon  Africa 
in  the  first  Punic  war,  twenty  thousand  prisoners  were  taken. 
On  the  great  victory  of  Marius  and  Catullus  over  the  Cimbri, 
sixty  thousand  were  captured.  When  Pindenissas  was  taken 
by  Cicero,  the  rnhabitanls  were  sold  for  more  than  £100,000. 
Augustus,  having  overcome  the  Sa]assi,sold  as  slaves  thirty-four 
thousand,  of  whom  eight  thousand  were  capable  of  bearing 
arms.  Caesar,  in  his  Gallic  wars,  according  to  the  moderate 
estimate  of  Velleius  Paterculus,  took  more  than  four  hundred 
thousand  prisoners." 

(^)  Slaves  were  acquired  by  commerce.  "  The  slave-trade 
in  Africa  is  as  old  as  history  reaches  back.  Among  the  ruling 
nations  of  the  North  coast, — the  Egyptians,  Cyrenians,  and 
Carthagenians, — slavery  was  not  only  established,  but  they 
imported  whole  armies  of  slaves,  partly  for  home  use,  and 
partly,  at  least  by  the  Carthagenians,  to  be  shipped  for  foreign 
markets.  They  were  chiefly  drawn  from  the  interior,  where 
kidnapping  was  just  as  much  carried  on  then  as  now.  Black 
male  and  female  slaves  were  even  aa  article  of  luxury,  not 
only  among  the  above-named  nations,  but  in  Greece  and  Italy. 
For  the  building  of  the  public  works  at  Rome,  vast  numbers 
of  slaves  were  procured.  In  raising  such  a  structure  as  the 
Mausoleum  of  Adrian,  thousands  of  wretched  men,  torn  from 
their  own  firesides,  were  toiled  unto  death.    For  a  long  period, 

•  BibL  Repos.  as  above,  pp.  413,414. 
22 


254  AN   INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

great  numlDcrs  of  slaves  were  drawn  from  Asia  Minor,  parti- 
cularly from  Phrygia  and  Cappadocia.  Slave  and  Phrygian 
became  almost  convertible  terms.  So  great  a  multitude  were 
carried  into  slavery,  that  but  few  towns  were  planted ;  the 
country  was  rather  a  pasturage  for  flocks.  In  most  countries 
it  was  common  for  parents  to  sell  their  children  into  slavery. 
Man-stealing  was,  at  all  times,  a  very  common  crime  among 
the  ancients."  The  following  places  are  mentioned  either  as 
emporia  for  slaves,  or  countries  from  which  they  were  pro- 
cured : — Delos,  Phrygia,  and  Cappadocia ;  Panticapaeum, 
Dioscurias,  and  Phanagoria  on  the  Euxine  or  Black  Sea; 
Alexandria  and  Cadiz  ;  Corsica,  Sardinia,  and  Britain  ;  Africa 
and  Thrace  ;  and,  indeed,  almost  every  part  of  the  world  fur- 
nished slaves  for  the  Roman  people.* 

(c)  Freeborn  Romans  might  be  reduced  to  slavery  by  law. 
Criminals  doomed  to  certain  ignominious  punishments,  were, 
by  the  effect  of  their  sentence,  deprived  of  citizenship,  and 
reduced  to  servitude.  Those  who  did  not  giv^e  in  their  names 
for  enrolment  in  the  militia,  were  beaten,  and  sold  into  slavery 
beyond  the  Tiber.  Those  who  did  not  make  proper  returns 
to  the  Censor,  were  liable  to  be  visited  with  the  same  punish- 
ment. An  indigent  thief  was  adjudged  as  a  slave  to  the  injured 
party.  Children  that  were  exposed  by  their  parents,  and  left 
to  perish,  became,  by  law,  the  slaves  of  any  person  who  chose 
to  take  them  up  and  support  them.  Freedmen,  if  guilty  of 
ingratitude  towards  their  former  masters,  might  be  again  re- 
duced to  slavery. 

{d)  Persons  became  slaves  by  birth.  The  Roman  law  on 
this  subject  was,  that  the  condition  of  the  child  depended  on 
that  of  the  mother  alone — partus  sequitur  ventrem.  "The 
father  of  a  natural  child,  by  his  bond-woman,  was  the  master 
of  his  offspring,  as  much  as  any  other  of  his  slaves." 

(3.)  In  regard  to  the  condition  of  slaves  under  the  Roman 

*  Comp.  Bib.  Repos.  as  above,  pp.  416,  417. 


SCRIPTUR.U.    VIEWS    OF    SLAVERY.  255 

laws  as  they  existed  in  the  time  of  the  propagation  of  Chris- 
tianit\%  it  may  be  remarked, 

(a)  That  the  master  had  the  power  of  hfe  and  death  over 
the  slave.  Thus  the  Codex  Justinian  says,  "All  slaves 
are  in  the  power  of  their  masters,  which  power  is  derived 
from  the  law  of  nations ;  for  it  is  equally  observable  among 
all  nations,  that  masters  have  had  the  power  of  life  and  death 
over  their  slaves." 

Prof.  W.  A.  Becker,  of  Leipsic,  in  an  article  translated  for 
the  Bibliolheca  Sacra,  (vol.  ii.  p.  571,)  says,  "With  the 
Romans,  a  slave  passed  indeed  for  a  human  being-,  but  one 
without  any  personal  rights ;  in  the  legal  sense  he  had  no 
caputs  no  legal  rights,  no  legal  capacity.  The  master  had 
the  entire  right  of  property  in  the  slave,  and  could  do  just  as 
he  pleased  with  his  person  and  hfe,  his  powers  and  his 
earnings. 

"  In  regard  to  the  power  of  hfe  and  death,  it  was  unlimited. 
The  master  could  use  the  slave  for  any  purpose  that  suited 
his  own  pleasure.  He  could  punish  him,  put  him  to  pain 
and  torture,  and,  free  from  all  obligation  to  give  account  of  his 
actions,  could  put  him  to  death  in  any  way  that  pleased  him. 
This  right  of  unlimited  dominion  continued  down  to  a  late  time, 
and  certainly  through  the  whole  period  of  the  republic,  and 
it  can  be  safely  assumed  that  it  was  in  less  actual  exercise  in 
the  earher  than  in  the  later  periods  of  Roman  history.  The 
arbitrary  exercise  of  this  power,  which  had  been  previously 
subject  only  to  censorial  animadversion,  was  gradually  limited, 
at  first  by  the  operation  of  the  Lex  Petronia,  which  forbade 
that  any  one  should  give  up  his  slave  arbitrarily,  {sine  ju dice,) 
to  fight  with  wild  beasts,  (ad  bestias  dcpugnaiidas  ;)  perhaps 
even  in  the  time  of  Augustus,  though  the  story  of  the  cruelty 
of  Vedius  Pollio*  seems  to  prove,  that  up  to  that  time  there 
was  no  legal  restriction  on  the  right  of  the  master."  The 
whole  article  of  Pjof.  Becker  may  be  consulted  with  advantage. 

*  Dio  Cas.  Uv.  Seneca  de  Ira,  ill.  40. 


256  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

(b)  They  were  permitted  to  hold  no  property  as  their  own, 
whatever  they  acquired  being  regarded  as  the  property  of 
their  masters.  Thus  the  Codex  Just,  says,  "  Whatever  is 
acquired  by  the  slave,  is  acquired  for  the  master."  "What- 
ever our  slaves  have  at  an}'-  time  acquired,  whether  by  deli- 
very, stipulation,  donation,  bequest,  or  any  other  means,  the 
same  is  reputed  to  be  acquired  by  ourselves,  for  he  who  is  a 
slave  can  have  no  property.  And  if  a  slave  is  instituted  an 
heir,  he  cannot  otherwise  take  upon  himself  the  inheritance, 
than  at  the  command  of  the  master." 

(c)  Slaves  were  not  permitted  to  marry.  "  Servile  rela- 
tions are  an  impediment  to  matrimony."  The  only  sexual 
connection  was  a  contubcrnii'tn,  a  mere  living  together,  with- 
out anj^  of  the  legitimate  rights  of  marriage.* 

{(l)  They  were  not  allowed  to  give  testimony.  "  Those 
persons  are  allowed  to  be  good  witnesses,  who  are  themselves 
legally  capable  of  taking  by  testament ;  but  yet  no  woman, 
slave^  interdicted  prodigal,  no  person  under  puberty,  &c.,  can 
be  admitted  a  witness  to  a  testament." 

(e)  They  were  exposed  to  the  most  unrelenting  barbarity, 
being  wholly  unprotected  by  law,  and  left  entirely  in  the 
power  of  their  owners.  They  were  hable  to  every  kind  of 
torture;  and  cruel  masters  sometimes  kept  on  their  estates 
tormentors  by  profession,  for  the  purpose  of  punishing  their 
slaves.  Burning  alive  was  sometimes  resorted  to,  and  cruci- 
fixion was  frequently  made  the  fate  of  a  slave  for  trifling 
misconduct,  or  from  mere  caprice.  The  truth  was,  that 
slaves  were  considered  in  no  other  hght  than  as  representatives 
of  so  much  value,  and  were  in  all  cases  liable  to  be  disposed 
of  as  any  other  property  was,  with  no  respect  whatever  to  their 
beinsf  moral  and  intellectual  beings.  Hence,  it  is  not  wonder- 
ful  that  they  should  have  been  slain  as  food  for  fishes,  or  that 
the  question  should  have  arisen  whether,  in  a  storm,  a  man 
should  sacrifice  a  horse,  or  a  less  valuable  slave.t 

*  See  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  vol.  ii.  p.  572. 

I  Comp.  Wayland's  Letters  on  Slavery,  pp.  86,  87. 


SCniPTUHAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  257 

Among  the  modes  of  punishment  enumerated  by  Professor 
Edwards  as  practised  on  slaves,  were  the  following  : — »*  The 
lash  and  rod  were  in  frequent  use.  If  a  slave  sj)oke  or  coiii^hed 
at  a  forbidden  time,  he  was  flogged  by  a  very  severe  mastir. 
The  toilet  of  a  lady  of  fashion  was  a  terrible  ordeal  for  a  slave. 
A  stray  curl  was  an  inexorable  oirence,  and  the  slave's  back 
was  punished  for  the  faults  of  the  mirror.  Burning  alive  is 
mentioned  as  a  punishment  in  tlie  Pandects  and  elsewhere. 
Tertullian  says  it  was  first  used  for  slaves  alone.  Vine  sap- 
lings, as  instruments  of  punishment,  were  the  least  dishonour- 
able ;  next  to  them  rods— fustcs  or  virs^Xt  scourges— JIos;clla 
or  Jlag;ra^  sometimes  loaded  with  lead — phtmbafa.  Chain 
scourges  were  used,  with  weights  at  the  end,  all  of  bronze  or 
tin.  The  f^wz//e?fs  was  a  terrible  instrument  of  torture.  Dis- 
location was  one  of  its  effects.  There  were  also  ihe  JidiculfC — 
lyre  strings,  the  ungula  and  forceps^  &c.  A  slave  taken 
among  soldiers  was  cast  from  theCapitoline  rock,  having  been 
first  manumitted  that  he  might  be  worthy  of  that  punishment. 
Cruel  masters  sometimes  hired  torturers  by  profession,  or  had 
such  in  their  establishments,  to  assist  them  in  punishing  their 
slaves,  or  in  extorting  confessions  from  them.  The  noses, 
ears,  teeth,  or  even  eyes  w'ere  in  great  danger  from  an  enraged 
master.  Crucifixion  was  frequently  made  the  fate  of  a  wretched 
slave,  for  trifling  conduct,  or  for  mere  caprice."  "  Hortensius 
cared  less  for  the  health  of  l^is  slaves,  than  for  that  of  his  fish. 
It  was  a  question  put  for  ingenious  disputation,  whether,  in 
order  to  lighten  a  vessel  in  a  storm,  one  should  sacrifice  a 
valuable  horse,  or  a  worthless  slave." 

It  is  to  be  conceded,  therefore,  that  slavery  existed  in  its 
most  revolting  forms  in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  and  that  they 
often  came  in  contact  with  it,  in  preaching  the  gospel,  and  in 
organizing  churches.  It  is  to  be  admitted  that  it  existed  under 
laws  as  severe  and  arbitrary  ;  laws  which  gave  to  the  master 
as  absolute  power  over  the  slave,  and  which  subjected  him  to 
as  great  oppression  and  wrong,  as  the  laws  in  the  slave  slates 
of  this  Union.     ^Vhatever  may  follow  from  this,  either  for  or 

22* 


258  AN    INQUIRY   INTO    THE 

against  slavery  as  it  now  exists,  the  fact  cannot  be  denied,  and 
that  fact  is  not  to  be  called  in  question  in  our  reasonings  on 
the  subject. 

It  has  recently  been  made  a  question  whether  slavery  ex- 
isted in  those  parts  of  the  Roman  empire  where  the  apostles 
founded  churches,  and  consequently  whether  they  ever  in 
fact  came  in  contact  with  it.  Indeed,  it  has  been  maintained 
by  some  of  the  friends  of  the  anti-slavery  cause,  that  there  is 
no  reason  to  think  that  it  existed  in  Asia  Minor  in  the  time 
of  the  apostles,  and  that,  consequently,  when,  in  addressing 
*  masters  and  servants'  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians,  to  the 
Colossians,  and  in  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter,  there  is  no  evi- 
dence that  slaves  were  intended,  but  that  the  reference  is  to  a 
condition  of  voluntary  service.  If  this  could  be  made  out ; 
if  it  could  be  demonstrated  that  there  was  no  slavery  in  those 
places  to  which  those  epistles  were  addressed,  it  would  be 
indeed  fair  to  suppose  that  the  terms  used  by  the  apostles  did 
not  relate  to  slavery,  and  that  it  could  not  be  proved  from  those 
epistles  that  the  apostles  ever  admitted  the  masters  of  slaves 
to  the  communion  of  the  church.  But  even  then  the  whole 
difficulty  would  not  be  met,  for  in  the  epistles  to  Timothy, 
(1  Epis.  vi.  1 — 3,)  and  to  Titus,  (ii.  9,  10,)  there  is  a  reference 
to  the  same  relation,  and  those  epistles  have  no  special  reference 
10  Asia  Minor,  but  contain  general  directions  to  those  who  were 
ministers  of  the  gospel  in  the  church  at  large. 

But,  it  seems  to  me,  that  it  is  wholly  improbable  that  there 
were  no  slaves  in  Asia  Minor,  and,  at  all  events,  it  cannot 
be  demonstrated  that  there  were  none  ;  and  if  this  is  so,  then 
it  is  to  be  admitted  that  the  passages  in  those  epistles  refer  to 
those  who  sustained  the  relation  of  master  and  slave — and  that 
whatever  advantage  can  be  derived  from  that  fact,  if  any,  by 
the  advocates  of  slavery,  the  fact  is  to  be  conceded.  The  rea- 
sons for  this  are  briefly  these:  (l.)  It  is  highly  improbable 
that  when  slavery  prevailed  so  extensively  throughout  the 
Roman  empire,  it  should  not  have  existed  in  Asia  Minor. 
There  were  no  influences  at  work  there,  as  in  Palestine ;  no 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  259 

institutions  of  religion  ;  no  principles  of  liberty  to  prevent  it. 
(2.)  We  have  seen  above  that  large  numbers  of  i*iirygiana 
and  Cappadocians  were  taken  as  slaves  to  Rome,  and  it  is  a 
rare  thing,  perhaps  a  thing  that  never  has  occurred,  that 
slavery  did  not  prevail  in  a  country  which  furnished  slaves  for 
another  country.  The  very  fact  that  Phrygia  and  Cappado- 
cia  were  understood  to  be  places  from  which  slaves  could  be 
obtained  for  the  capital,  would  make  it  necessary  to  keep  them 
for  the  market.  (3.)  There  is  direct  evidence  which  makes 
it  more  than  probable  that  slavery  had  an  existence  in  the 
provinces  of  Asia  Minor.  It  undoubtedly  existed  all  around 
it,  and  in  such  a  way  that  it  would  naturally  exist  there  also. 
Thus  Timajus  asserts  that,  in  early  times,  before  Athens  had 
obtained  possession  of  the  commerce  of  the  seas,  Corinth  had 
four  hundred  and  sixty  thousand  slaves.  In  Sparta,  slaves 
abounded,  and  the  name  Helot  was  synonymous  with  that  of 
slave.  In  Attica  there  were  about  eighty  thousand  citizens, 
and  four  hundred  thousand  slaves.  After  the  fall  of  Corinth, 
the  island  of  Delos  rose  into  importance  as  a  commercial  place, 
and  especially  as  a  mart  for  slaves.  The  slave-trade  there 
was  so  brisk  that  the  port  became  proverbial  for  the  traffic, 
and  was  capable,  says  Strabo,  of  importing  and  re-exporting 
ten  thousand  slaves  in  a  single  (\^y.*  As  a  matter  of  fact  it 
is  asserted  that  "  there  were  six  thousand  slaves  which  be- 
longed to  the  temple  of  a  goddess  in  Cappadocia."  Hence  the 
words  of  Horace,"  Mancipiis  locuples,  eget  acris  Cappadocum 
rex."t  These  facts  make  it  morally  certain  that  slavery  must 
have  existed  in  Asia  Minor,  and  that  it  undoubtedly  existed  at 
Ephesus  and  Colosse.  It  shouW  be  added,  (4.)  That  the  most 
natural  and  obvious  interpretations  of  the  passages  in  those 
epistles,  is  to  refer  them  to  the  relation  of  master  and  slave. 
This  will  be  shown  in  the  sequel.     I  am  persuaded  that  no- 

•  Sec  an  article  in  the  Biblical  Repository  on  "  Slavery  in  Ancient 
Greece,"  l»y  Professor  B.  B.  Edwards,  vol.  v.  pp.  138,  scq. 
I  See  Biblical  Repository,  vol.  v.  p.  416. 


260  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

thing  can  be  gnined  to  the  cause  of  anti-slavery  by  attempting 
to  deny  that  the  apostles  found  slavery  in  existence  in  the 
regions  where  they  founded  churches,  and  that  those  sustain- 
ing the  relation  of  master  and  slave  were  admitted  to  the 
churches  if  they  gave  real  evidence  of  regeneration,  and  were 
regarded  by  the  apostles  as  entitled  to  the  common  participa- 
tion of  the  privileges  of  Christianity.  If  the  argument  from 
the  Scriptures  against  slavery  cannot  be  sustained  without 
admitting  that,  I  do  not  see  that  it  can  be  sustained  at  all. 

§  2.  The  Apostles  did  not  openly  denounce  Slavery  as  an 
evilj  or  require  that  those  who  were  held  in  bondage  should 
he  at  once  emancipated. 

In  inquiring  into  the  manner  in  which  the  apostles  treated 
the  subject  of  slavery,  it  is  clear  that  they  did  not  openly  and 
everywhere  denounce  it  as  an  evil ;  that  they  did  not  make 
immediate  and  direct  war  upon  it ;  that  they  did  not  declare 
that  a  slaveholder  could  in  no  possible  circumstances  be  a 
Christian ;  that  they  did  not  demand  the  emancipation  of 
slaves  as  an  indispensable  condition  of  admission  to  the 
church  ;  that  they  did  not  forbid  all  fellowship  with  those 
who  held  slaves,  or  require  others  wholly  to  separate  from 
them ;  and  that  \hey  did  not  encourage  efforts  to  promote  in- 
surrection among  the  slaves  themselves.  These  things  seem 
to  me  to  lie  on  the  face  of  the  New  Testament,  and  what- 
ever argument  they  may  furnish  to  the  advocates  of  slavery, 
or  whatever  difficulty  they  may  present  to  the  enemies  of 
slavery  in  disposing  of  these  facts,  it  seems  plain  that  the  facts 
themselves  cannot  be  denied. 

More  particularly,  in  reference  to  this  point,  the  following 
things  must  be  regarded  as  indisputable  : — 

1.  That  slaveholders  were  admitted  by  the  apostles  to  the 
Christian  church,  and  were  not  subjected  to  immediate  disci- 
pline for  holding  slaves ;  in  other  words,  that  where  those 
were  converted  who  held  slaves,  as  probably  many  were,  it 


SCRIPTURAL    MEWS    OF    SLAVF.RY.  261 

was  not  required  of  them  in  all  cases  lo  emancipate  their 
slaves  in  order  that  they  should  become  members  of  the 
church.  Tliis  is  clear,  because  (a)  it  is  undeniable  that 
they  preached  to  many  who  were  slaveholders ;  {b)  there 
is  no  direct  evidence  that  they  required  them  to  emancipate 
their  slaves  in  order  to  their  beinir  admitted  to  the  church ; 
(f)  they  addressed  those  to  whom  their  epistles  were  directed 
as  in  fact  still  sustaining  this  relation,  though  they  were 
members  of  the  church.  Eph.  vi.  9;  Col.  iv.  1  ;  1  Tim. 
vi.  2,  and  Titus  ii.  0,  10.  The  passage  in  1  Tim.  vi.  2, 
makes  this  so  clear,  it  seems  to  me,  that  it  cannot  be  denied 
by  any  one  who  will  candidly  and  carefully  examine  the 
direction  of  the  apostle:  "And  they  that  have  believing 
masters,  let  them  not  despise  them,  because  they  are  bre- 
thren ;  but  rather  do  them  service,  because  they  are  failhfid 
and  beloved^  The  same  thing  is  taught  with  equal  clear- 
ness in  1  Cor.  xii.  13  :  "  For  by  one  spirit  are  we  all  bap- 
tized into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles ;  whe- 
ther we  be  bond  or  free^  Here,  it  is  evident,  that  as 
there  were  in  the  church  those  who  had  been  Jews,  and  those 
who  were  of  Gentile  origin,  so  there  were  those  who  were 
properly  described  by  the  word  'bond' — SoCxoi — and  those 
who  were  described  by  the  word  *  free' — fKtv^f^oi.  It  is  true, 
that  the  latter  term  does  not  necessarily  prove  that  they  were 
masters  or  owners  of  slaves,  still  the  use  of  the  term  '  bond 
and  free'  in  the  same  connection  would  most  naturally  suggest 
that.  I  do  not  think  that  an  argument  could  be  based  on  the 
mere  words  used  here,  to  prove  that  they  were  slaveholders  ; 
but  in  a  community  where  slavery  abounded — for  example, 
like  that  in  South  Carolina  or  Georgia,  the  phrase,  'the  bond 
and  the  free,'  used  in  any  connection,  would  most  naturally  be 
understood  as  referring  to  masters  and  slaves.  The  only 
question  which  can  be  raised  on  this  point  is,  whether  the 
term  used  in  the  passages  just  referred  to,  oi  xt'pioc,  and  the 
corresponding  term  used  in  1  Pet.  ii.  18,  itortori;? — and  rendered 
in  every  instance  jnasters,  refers  to  uiaslers  in  the  sense  of 


262  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

proprietors  of  slaves,  or  masters  in  the  sense  of  having  those 
in  their  employ  who  were  voluntary  or  hired  servants.  I 
admit  that  so  far  as  the  words  themselves  are  concerned,  they 
do  not  necessarily  imply  that  those  to  whom  they  are  applied 
were  masters  in  the  former  sense,  for  they  would  be  used, 
and  were  often  used,  to  denote  those  who  had  those  ifnder 
them  who  were  voluntary  servants,  and  would  be  the  terms 
which  would  be  naturally  employed  to  denote  such  a  relation. 
But  there  are  three  circumstances  which  seem  to  make  it 
clear  that  the  words  are  used  here  as  denoting  those  who 
were  the  owners  of  slaves.  1.  One  is,  that  the  condition 
of  those  towards  whom  they  are  represented  as  sustaining 
the  relation  of  masters,  was  evidently  that  of  slavery.  No 
one,  it  seems  to  me,  can  doubt  that  they  were  slaves. 
Their  condition  is  not  described  as  one  of  voluntary  ser- 
vice, but  as  a  much  harder  service — in  which  they  were 
*  under  the  yoke ;'  in  which  they  were  subjected  to  great 
hardships ;  and  from  which  it  is  said  that  it  would  be  de- 
sirable to  be  delivered  if  possible.  The  evidence  of  this  will 
appear  in  another  part  of  the  argument.  But  if  this  be  so, 
then  it  will  follow  that  the  terms  used  in  addressing  masters 
were  such  as  denote  the  owners  of  slaves.  2.  A  second 
thing  is,  that  considering  the  universal  prevalence  of  slavery 
where  the  gospel  was  preached,  it  is  not  probable  that  any 
very  considerable  number  Avould  be  found  who  were  masters 
and  servants  in  the  sense  of  a  voluntary  servitude  on  the 
part  of  the  latter.  The  great  mass  of  those  who  sustained 
the  relation  of  master  and  servant,  were  those  among  whom 
the  terms  would  denote  slavery,  and  it  is  morally  certain  that 
many  of  them  would  be  brought  under  the  power  of  the  gos- 
pel. In  other  words,  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  the  gospel 
would  be  preached  in  so  discriminating  a  manner  that  only 
those  would  be  converted  who  stood  entirely  aloof  from  slavery 
— both  as  masters  and  servants.  But  unless  these  terms  are  used 
in  that  sense,  there  is  no  reference  to  the  relation  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  nothing  can  be  inferred  about  the  views  of 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVERY.  2G3 

the  apostles  in  the  case,  one  way  or  the  other.  3.  A  lliird 
circumstance  is,  that  this  is  the  interpretation  which  would  be 
put,  and  is  put,  on  these  expressions  by  the  great  mass  of  the 
readers  of  the  New  Testament — by  plain  Christians  in  all 
lands  and  times  who  have  no  theory  to  support : — one  of  the 
best  of  all  evidences  that  the  interpretation  is  correct. 

Whether  this  fact  would  make  it  proper  to  treat  slaver}^  in 
the  same  manner  now,  is  indeed  quite  another  question,  and 
one  which  it  is  not  necessary  to  argue  here.  There  are  many 
things  to  be  considered  in  reference  to  that  before  it  would 
be  legitimate  to  draw  the  conclusion,  that  because  the  apostles 
admitted  slaveholders  to  the  church  in  the  state  of  things 
which  existed  in  the  world  in  their  time,  therefore  it  would 
be  proper  to  do  it  in  all  circumstances,  and  at  all  periods  of 
the  world,  and  in  all  coujitries.  It  is  quite  conceivable  at 
least  that  circumstances  may  so  change,  that  what  would  be 
wise  and  expedient  at  one  time  would  be  in  the  highest  de- 
gree unwise  and  inexpedient  at  another;  and  it  is  casting  no 
imputation  on  the  moral  integrity  of  an  apostle  to  suppose  that, 
under  the  laws  of  the  Roman  empire,  amidst  institutions 
which  had  been  sanctioned  for  ages,  and  in  a  state  of  things 
where  they  had  no  agency  in  making  the  laws,  some  things 
might  have  been  tolerated  which  they  would  not  have  deemed 
it  best  to  tolerate  in  a  community  like  that  existing  now  in  the 
United  States.  Nay,  it  is  conceivable  that  going  as  they  did 
as  missionaries  among  the  heathen — poor,  friendless,  un- 
known, with  no  powerful  protectors,  there  might  have  been 
arrangements  admitted  into  the  church  which  they  would  not 
have  judged  to  be  the  best  possible  for  all  circumstances,  or 
which  they  would  regard  as  on  the  whole  the  most  desirable. 
Tliis  certainly  occurred  in  regard  to  some  things  ;  it  moi/  be 
that  it  was  so  in  regard  to  slavery.  It  might  be,  there-ford, 
an  unfair  inference  to  conclude,  that  because  the  apostles  ad- 
mitted slaveholders  to  the  communion,  therefore  this  should 
be  contemplated  as  a  permanent  arranp^ement  in  a  well- 
organized  Christian  community,  or  that  a  Missionary  Board 


264  AN   INQUIRY   INTO    THE 

in  this  age  should  contemplate  this  in  their  missions  among  the 
heathen.  The  onlyy«/r  inference  from  their  conduct  is,  that 
slavery,  in  all  conceivable  circumstances,  is  not  to  be  regarded 
as  a  sin.  Whether  in  any  circumstances,  however,  it  is,  or 
is  not,  is  a  legitimate  subject  of  inquiry.  Whether  this  con- 
duct on  the  part  of  the  apostles  was  consistent  with  moral 
honesty,  and  with  a  real  hatred  of  slavery,  will  be  the  sub- 
ject of  subsequent  consideration. 

2.  In  like  manner,  the  apostles  did  not  deny  that  those  who 
were  the  holders  of  slaves  might  be  true  Christians.  This  is 
impHed,  indeed,  in  the  fact  that  they  were  admitted  into  the 
church,  but  there  is  more  direct  and  independent  proof  of  it. 
Thus,  in  1  Tim.  vi.  2,  they  are  addressed  as  such:  "And 
they  [that  is  those  servants  who  are  under  the  yoke]  that 
have  believing  masters,  let  them  not  despise  them,  because 
they  are  brethren."  Here,  there  are  three  terms  employed 
which  imply  that,  though  sustaining  this  relation,  they  were 
regarded  as  real  Christians.  The  first  is  found  in  the  phrase 
'  believing  masters'' — Ttiotov^  Sfcrtofaj — a  phrase  which  would 
be  properly  applied  only  to  those  who  were  true  Christians. 
Comp.  Luke  xix.  17;  John  xx.  27;  Acts  x.  45;  xvi.  1,  15; 
2  Cor.  vi.  15;  Gal.  iii.  9;  Eph.  i.  1,  et  al.  The  second 
term  is  brethren — '  let  them  not  despise  them  because  they 
are  brethren,'' — a  term  also  which  denotes  that  they  were  re- 
garded as  fellow-Christians,  or  were  to  be  regarded  by  the 
*  servants  under  the  yoke'  as  their  brethren.  The  third  term 
or  phrase  is,  'faithful  and  beloved' — showing  that  they  had, 
and  that  they  deserved,  the  confidence  of  those  who  were 
Christians.  No  one  can  doubt  that  there  are  many  such 
masters  of  slaves  in  our  own  countrv,  who  on  account  of  their 
Christian  virtues  are,  and  deserve  to  be,  greatly  beloved. 
The  exhortation  to  the  servants  that  they  should  not  despise 
them  because  they  were  brethren,  is  based  on  the  fact  that  there 
might  possibly  spring  up  in  their  minds,  unless  they  were 
properly  instructed,  a  want  of  respect  for  their  masters  if  they 
were  regarded  as  '  brethren  ;'  or  from  the  fact  that  the  master 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  2G5 

and  ihe  sen'aiU  had  embraced  tlie  same  religion,  and  were  to 
be  regarded  as  in  the  niojjl  important  respects  on  an  equality. 
It  would  not  be  wholly  unnatural  that  this  truth  should  be  so 
perverted  by  ill-designing  persons  as  to  make  servants  in- 
subordinate and  disrespectful;  and  it  would  be  easy  for  such 
persons  to  allege,  that  as  they  were  equal  before  God, 
the  master  had  no  right  to  control  the  servant,  and  the  ser- 
vant was  under  no  obligation  to  obedience.  While,  there- 
fore, the  aposlle  admitted  in  the  fullest  sense  that,  as  Chris- 
tians, they  were  equal,  and  were  to  regard  each  other  as 
brethren,  he  designed  to  guard  the  servant  from  the  inference 
which  some  might  derive  from  this  fact,  that  all  distinctions 
were  at  once  to  be  broken  down  between  them.  This  pas- 
sage then  proves  that  those  who  had  owned  slaves  in  accord- 
ance with  the  prevailing  laws  of  the  Roman  empire,  might  be 
converted  to  the  Christian  faith,  be  admitted  to  the  church, 
and  be  addressed  as  Christian  brethren.  It  does  not  prove, 
however,  that  they  might  buy  and  sell  slaves  after  they  were 
converted ;  nor  does  it  state  how  Jong  they  might  continue 
to  hold  slaves  and  yet  be  regarded  as  true  Christians  ;  nor 
dot^  it  of  necessity  imply  that  they  might  contemplate  this 
as  a  permanent  arrangement,  and  contentedly  hold  their  fel- 
low-men in  bondage  with  no  purpose  to  restore  them  to 
freedom.  Though  they  were  regarded  as  truly  converted, 
and  though  they  are  addressed  as  'brethren,'  yet  nothing  in 
this  passage  forbids  the  supposition  that  it  might  be  a  duty 
for  them  to  cause  this  relation  to  cease  as  soon  as  it  could  be 
done.  Whether  that  was  so,  must  be  determined  by  an  inde- 
pendent inquiry. 

3.  In  like  manner,  it  is  to  be  conceded  that  the  apostles 
did  not  openly  and  publicly  proclaim  that  slavery  was  an  evil ; 
that  the  Roman  laws  on  this  subject  were  wrong ;  that  the 
whole  institution  was  contrary  to  the  gospel ;  that  the  system 
was  replete  with  every  form  of  monstrous  error ;  and  that  it 
was  the  duty  of  every  man  who  owned  slaves  at  once  to  set 
them  at  liberty.    They  never  used  harsh  and  severe  language 

21 


266  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

in  regard  to  it ;  never  denounced  civil  government  as  wholly- 
evil,  because  it  upheld  the  institution ;  never  spoke  of  those 
who  held  slaves  as  thieves,  or  murderers,  or  infidels,  or  adul- 
terers, or  open  abettors  of  vice  and  immorahty.  The  simple 
proof  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  an  appeal  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Such  violent  denunciations  and  such  severities  of 
language  are  not  to  be  found  there ;  and  as  it  is  to  be  pre- 
sumed that  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  we  have  a  fair  repre- 
sentation of  their  usual  manner  of  preaching,  and  a  statement 
of  the  topics  which  they  insisted  on  in  their  public  discourses ; 
and  as  in  their  epistles  we  have  a  fair  illustration,  undoubtedly, 
of  the  usual  method  in  which  they  addressed  the  churches, 
the  inference  is  clear  that  such  violent  denunciations  formed 
no  part  of  their  preaching.  It  cannot  fail,  I  think,  to  strike 
every  one,  that  there  is  a  most  marked  difference  between  the 
manner  of  the  apostles  in  this  respect,  and  the  style  of  address 
of  many  who  are  the  advocates  of  emancipation  at  the  present 
day.  There  is  a  severity  of  language  which  finds  no  counte- 
nance in  the  New  Testament.  There  are  severe  reproaches 
cast  on  the  owners  of  slaves,  which  find  no  parallel  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  in  the  Epistles.  There  is  a  style 
of  denouncing  civil  government,  and  ecclesiastical  bodies, 
and  churches,  and  ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  private 
Christians,  which  is  utterly  foreign  to  the  methods  of  dis- 
cussing these  questions  employed  by  the  apostles.  No  calm 
and  dispassionate  inquirer,  it  seems  to  me,  can  doubt  that 
in  their  methods  of  discussing  this  subject,  many  who  are 
called  *  abolitionists'  have  departed  far  from  the  example  of  the 
apostles ;  and,  indeed,  I  apprehend,  not  a  few  of  them  would 
openly  avow  it.  But  it  is  as  clear  that  their  coui-se  has  been 
wrong  in  itself,  and  has  been  adapted  to  defeat  the  very  end 
in  view.  Indeed,  it  would  seem  that  if  Satan  had  resolved 
to  employ  his  highest  ability  in  forming  a  scheme  by  which 
the  fetters  of  the  slave  should  be  riveted  for  ever  on  the  un- 
happy children  of  Africa  in  this  land,  he  could  not  have 
devised  a  more  eflectual  way  than  by  producing  just  the  mode 


SCUIPTIUAL    VIKWS    OK    SLAVLRY.  2G7 

of  treating  it  which  prevails  at  the  South  p.nd  the  North. 
Never,  it  seems  to  mc,  has  a  good  cause  been  more  wretchedly 
managed  in  the  main  than  the  cause  of  anti-slavery  in  the 
United  Slates.  Any  man  will  do  a  good  service  to  his  gene- 
ration who  can  contribute  to  bring  his  fellow-citizens,  by 
exhortation  or  example,  to  a  more  calm  and  kind  way  of  meet- 
ing this  great  evil.  The  following  remarks  of  the  late  Dr. 
Channing,  in  his  work  on  Slavery,  should  command  the  assent 
of  all  thinking  men. 

"  The  abolitionists  have  done  wrong,  I  believe  ;  nor  is  their 
wrong  to  be  winked  at,  because  done  fanatically,  or  with  good 
intentions  ;  for  how  much  mischief  may  be  wrought  with  good 
designs  !  They  have  fallen  into  the  common  error  of  enthu- 
siasts, that  of  exaggerating  their  object,  of  feeling  as  if  no  evil 
existed  but  that  which  they  opposed,  and  as  if  no  guilt  could 
be  compared  with  that  of  countenancing  and  upholding  it. 
The  tone  of  their  newspapers,  as  far  as  I  have  seen  them,  has 
often  been  fierce,  bitter,  and  abusive." — p.  133.  "The  aboli- 
tionists might  have  formed  an  association ;  but  it  should  have 
been  an  elective  one.  Men  of  strong  principles,  judiciousness, 
sobriety,  should  have  been  carefully  sought  as  members. 
Much  good  might  have  been  accomplished  by  the  co-operation 
of  such  philanthropists.  Instead  of  this,  the  abolitionists  sent 
forth  their  orators,  some  of  them  transported  with  fiery  zeal, 
to  sound  the  alarm  against  slavery  through  the  land,  to  gather 
together  young  and  old,  pupils  from  schools,  females  hardly 
arrived  at  years  of  discretion,  the  ignorant,  the  excitable,  the 
impetuous,  and  to  organize  these  into  associations  for  the 
battle  against  oppression.  Very  unhappily,  they  preached 
their  doctrine  to  the  coloured  people,  and  collected  them  into 
societies.  To  this  mixed  and  excitable  multitude,  minute, 
heart-rending  descriptions  of  slavery  were  given  in  the 
piercing  tones  of  passion ;  and  slaveholders  were  held  up  as 
monsters  of  cruelty  and  crime." — p.  13G.  One  great  principle 
which  we  should  lay  down  as  immovably  true,  is,  that  if  a 
good  work  cannot  be  carried  on  by  the  calm,  self-controlled, 


268  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

benevolent  spirit  of  Christianity,  then  the  time  for  doing  it  has 
not  come.  God  asks  not  the  aid  of  our  vices.  He  can  over- 
rule them  for  good,  but  they  are  not  the  chosen  instruments 
of  human  happiness." — p.  138. 

4.  It  is  to  be  admitted,  that,  in  meeting  this  subject,  the 
apostles  gave  instructions  to  those  who  sustained  the  relation 
of  master  and  slave,  respecting  their  duties  while  in  that  rela- 
tion. The  passages  already  referred  to  contemplate  the  per- 
formance of  certain  duties  in  that  relation,  or  while  that 
relation  continued.  Thus,  in  regard  to  the  duty  of  masters, 
they  are  enjoined  (Eph.  vi.  9)  to  do  "the  same  things" 
towards  their  servants  which  had  been  enjoined  on  them  ;  to 
wit,  to  exhibit  the  same  kindness,  fidelity,  and  respect  for  the 
will  of  God.  They  were  to  "forbear  threatening;"  that  is, 
they  were  to  avoid  a  fretful  and  dissatisfied  temper — a  disposi- 
tion to  govern  by  terror  rather  than  by  love.  They  were 
(Col.  iv.  1)  to  "  give  unto  their  servants  that  which  is  just 
and  equal,  remembering  that  they  had  also  a  master  in 
heaven."  These,  I  believe,  are  all  the  direct  commands  which 
are  addressed  to  masters  in  the  New  Testament,  but  they 
imply  that  the  relation  did  exist,  and  that  there  were  import- 
ant duties  to  be  performed  in  that  relation.  There  are 
undoubtedly  many  general  precepts  addressed  to  Christians, 
as  such,  which  masters  would  be  expected  to  apply  to  them- 
selves to  regulate  their  conduct  in  their  treatment  of  their 
slaves,  but  these  are  all  that  directly  bear  on  the  subject, 
unless  the  case  of  Philemon,  which  will  be  examined  at  length 
in  the  sequel,  be  one.  It  is  indeed  quite  remarkable,  that, 
considering  the  fact  that  there  were  so  many  slaves  in  the 
countries  where  the  gospel  was  preached,  and  the  probability 
that  not  a  iaxY  masters  would  be  converted  to  the  Christian 
religion,  so  little  is  addressed  to  them  in  the  epistles,  and  that 
so  little  is  said  implying  that  the  relation  existed  at  all.  Still, 
these  passages  do  seem  to  make  it  certain  that  the  relation 
existed  among  some  who  were  members  of  the  church,  and 


SCRIPTURAL    \nE\VS    OF    SLAVERY.  269 

that  ihc  master  owed  imporlant  duties  to  liis  servant  whiltf^ 
sustaining  that  relation. 

There  are,  however,  more  passages  which  refer  to  the  duty 
of  slaves,  and  which  seem  to  imply  tliat,  as  might  be 
supposed,  more  slaves  than  masters  were  converted.  Thus 
in  Eph.  vi.  5 — 8,  they  are  instructed  to  be  "obedient  to  their 
masters  according  to  the  flesh,  with  fear  and  trembling,  in 
singleness  of  heart,  as  unto  Christ,  not  with  eye-service,  as 
men-pieasers,  but  as  the  servants  of  Christ,  doing  the  will  of 
God  from  the  heart ;  with  good-will  doing  service,  as  to  the 
Lord,  and  not  to  men."  In  Col.  iii.  22 — 25,  also,  a  direction 
ver}-  similar  to  this  occurs.  In  1  Tim.  vi.  1,2,  it  is  said,  "Let 
as  many  servants  as  are  under  the  yoke  count  their  own 
masters  worthy  of  all  honour,  that  the  name  of  God  and  his 
doctrine  be  not  blasphemed.  And  they  that  have  believing 
masters,  let  them  not  despise  them,  because  they  are  bre- 
thren ;  but  rather  do  them  service,  k^cause  they  are  faithful 
and  beloved,  partakers  of  the  benefit."  In  1  Pet.  ii.  18,  it 
is  said,  "Servants,  be  subject  to  your  masters  with  all  fear; 
not  only  to  the  good  and  gentle,  but  also  to  the  frow^ard." 
It  should  be  said  respecting  this  j)assage,  however,  that  it  is 
less  clear  that  it  refers  to  slavery  than  the  others  which  have 
been  adduced.  The  Greek  word  is  not  that  which  is  com- 
monly used,  6otxot,  but  oiactrat,  a  term  which  means  merely 
domeslicsj  fiouse'Contpauions,  or  household  servants — from 
otxoj,  house.  (See  Ch.  III.)  They  might  have  become  such 
domestics,  either  by  purchase  or  by  voluntary  agreement. 
The  .word  would  properly  apply  to  any  persons  who  were 
employed  about  a  house  as  domestics,  in  whatever  way  they 
entered  into  that  relation.  It  may  be  admitted  as  probable 
that  most  of  those  who  were  thus  engaged  were  slaves,  and 
that  such  are  referred  to  here  by  the  apostle.  But  that  fact 
is  not  conveyed  by  the  word  which  is  used. 

Whatever  conscfjuences  may  follow  from  tliesc  passages ; 
whatever  argument  may  be  fairly  deduced  from  them  by  the 

2:  J* 


270  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

advocates  of  slavery,  it  cannot,  it  seems  to  me,  be  denied  that 
the  apostles  addressed  those  to  whom  they  sent  their  epistles, 
as  sustaining  the  relation  of  master  and  slave,  and  gave  to  each 
instructions  in  regard  to  their  duty  in  that  relation.  They 
doubtless  meant  to  be  understood  as  teaching  that  in  that  rela- 
tion they  owed  important  duties  to  each  other.  It  is  also  to 
be  admitted,  that  in  giving  these  directions,  they  did  not  en- 
courage among  the  slaves  insurrection  against  their  masters, 
or  insubordination,  or  an  attempt  to  escape  by  '  running  away;' 
and,  in  like  manner,  it  is  to  be  admitted,  in  whatever  way  it 
may  be  explained,  that  they  did  not  enjoin  on  the  masters  the 
duty  of  emancipating  their  slaves  immediately  in  all  possible 
circumstances.  This  is  to  be  admitted,  becfiuse  no  instructions 
of  that  kind  can  be  found  in  their  writings,  and  it  is  not  to  be 
presumed  that  they  gave  one  species  of  instruction  to  them  in 
oral  intercourse,  and  another  in  their  letters. 

The  question  now  is,  whether,  these  things  being  so,  the 
conduct  of  the  apostles  shoAvs  that  they  regarded  the  system 
as  consistent  with  the  best  good  of  society,  and  as  one  to  be 
tolerated  and  perpetuated  in  the  church ;  or,  is  their  treat- 
ment of  this  matter  consistent  with  the  fact  that  they  regarded 
the  whole  system  as  evil,  and  that  they  sincerely  desired  its 
extinction  ?  If  they  did  so  regard  it ;  if  it  is  indeed  sinful 
and  evil,  can  their  conduct  be  vindicated  as  honest  men  ?  If 
they  regarded  it  as  wrong,  if  they  desired  its  extinction,  if  they 
meant  that  their  labours  as  Christian  men  should  abolish  it, 
can  their  conduct  in  the  points  now  referred  to  be  shown  to 
be  consistent  with  common  honesty,  and  with  that  openness 
and  boldness  in  exposing  sin  which  their  character  as  apostles 
demanded? 

These  are  certainly  very  important  questions,  and  on  all 
sides  they  should  be  met  with  candour  and  fairness.  They 
constitute  the  very  gist  of  the  Avhole  inquiry  respecting 
slavery,  so  far  as  the  New  Testament  is  concerned.  The 
ad\'-ocates  and  apologists  for  slavery,  as  a  scriptural  institution, 
would  probably  be  willing  to  leave  the  argument  here,  as 


SCRIPTURAL    Virus    OF    SLAVKUV.  271 

decisive  in  the  case.     The  ari^ument  on  which  they  rely  rests 
esseniiully  on  two  pounds  : — 

I.  That  the  apostles  '  lei^^islated  for  slavery,'  as  they  did  for 
the  relations  of  husband  and  wife,  and  parents  and  children ; 
aiid, 

U.  That  if  ihey  were  in  fact  opposed  to  slavery,  and  re- 
garded it  as  a  moral  evil,  and  yet  pursued  this  course,  it  was 
not  consistent  with  moral  honesty,  and  involved  one  of  the 
worst  forms  of  what  is  now  known  as  Jesuitism.  It  is  the 
duty  of  those  who  entertain  the  views  which  I  am  ndvocatinir, 
to  meet  these  arguments.  They  cannot  be  evaded  without 
being  fatal  to  the  cause.  Let  us  then  inquire  whether  these 
things  are  so. 

I.  The  first  argument  from  these  admitted  facts  is,  that  the 
apostles  les^is fated  for  slavery  as  they  did  for  the  relations  of 
husbands  and  wives,  and  parents  and  children.  By  this  it  is 
meant,  that  they  made  laws  for  those  who  sustained  that  rela- 
tion in  such  a  way  that  they  must  have  intended  that  the 
relation  should  be  permanent  in  the  church  ;  and  that  they 
could  not  have  done  this  if  they  had  regarded  the  institution  as 
sinful,  and  had  not  intended  to  lend  their  sanction  to  it.  It 
is  said  in  support  of  this  argument,  that  though  polygamy 
prevailed,  yet  that  they  never  legislated  for  that  relation — 
that  they  never  prescribed  the  duties  of  husbands  in  such  a 
sense  that  it  was  supposed  a  man  would  have  two  wives — 
and  that  they  never  prescribed  the  duties  of  the  wives  of  one 
man  to  each  other,  or  the  duties  of  a  plurality  of  wives  to  the 
same  husband.  It  would  be  said  further,  perhaps,  that  they 
never  prescribed  the  duties  of  pirates,  and  robbers,  and  thieves 
in  the  business  to  which  they  had  devoted  themselves,  nor  the 
duties  of  idolaters  to  their  idols  or  their  priests,  nor  the  duty 
of  men  in  any  other  sinful  relation.  When  John,  as  recorded  in 
Luke  iii.  12,  seq.,  prescribed  the  duties  of  '  publicans'  in  the 
employment  in  which  they  were  engaged,  it  is  said,  that  it  is 


272  AN    INQUIRY   INTO   THE 

fair  to  suppose  that  he  did  not  regard  that  employment  as 
necessarily  sinful ;  when  he  prescribed  the  duties  of  soldiers, 
it  is  implied  that  he  did  not  regard  the  occupation  of  a  soldier 
as  necessarily  wrong.  If  he  had  so  regarded  these  employ- 
ments, instead  of  prescribing  the  duties  of  these  persons  in 
them,  he  would  have  directed  them  at  once  to  leave  them,  and 
to  seek  some  honest  and  honourable  occupation.  The  argu- 
ment is,  that  a  relation  in  life  with  respect  to  which  the  Bible 
has  *  legislated,'  and  in  reference  to  which  it  has  prescribed 
duties  ill  that  relation,  may  be  permanently  continued,  con- 
sistently with  the  best  interests  of  society  and  the  world. 

I  need  not  say  that  this  argument  is  greatly  relied  on  by  the 
advocates  for  slavery  and  the  apologists  for  it,  and  that  it  is 
usually  considered  to  be  enough  merely  to  refer  to  it,  without 
drawing  it  out  to  even  the  length  in  which  I  have  staled  it. 
I  have  not  intended  to  do  injustice  to  it ;  and  I  have  not,  in  fact, 
found  it  so  strongly  expressed  as  is  done  in  the  language 
which  I  have  now  used. 

In  reply  to  this  argument,  I  would  make  the  following  re- 
marks : — 

(1.)  It  is  not  true  that  the  apostles  '  legi^latecV  for  slavery, 
or  for  its  existence,  in  any  proper  signification  of  the  word 
legislate.  The  word  legislate  means  "  to  make  or  enact  a 
law  or  laws."*  Now,  in  what  sense  is  it  true  that  the  apos- 
tles made  or  enacted  laws  respecting  slavery  ?  Did  they  ever 
take  up  the  subject  as  a  new  thing ;  as  a  matter  about  which 
arrangements  were  to  be  made ;  as  an  institution  concerning 
which  they  were  to  make  laws  to  be  of  permanent  observance 
in  the  church  ?  Assuredly,  they  did  none  of  these  things. 
They  did  not  prescribe  it  as  one  of  the  regulations  of  the 
church ;  they  did  not  even  utter  sentiments  fonnally  permit- 
ting it  in  the  church ;  they  did  not  attempt  to  make  laws 
respecting  it  at  all.  It  may  be  said  that  Moses  legislated  for 
it ;  and  that  the  Roman  senate  legislated  for  it ;  but  there  is 

*  Webster. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    01'    SLAVKKY.  273 

no  intelligible  sense  in  which  it  can  be  s.iid  that  tiic  apostles 
legislated  for  it.  They  prescribed  the  duties  of  the  master 
in  a  relation  already  existing — but  that  was  not  legislating  for 
slavery ;  they  prescribed  the  duties  of  places,  in  a  relation 
which  the  gospel  did%iot  originate,  but  in  wliich  it  found 
them — but  that  was  not  laying  down  laws  for  the  permanent 
continuance  of  the  institution.  The  permanency  of  the  in- 
stitution can  derive  no  support  from  what  they  said  on  the 
subject,  and  in  no  manner  depends  on  it.  The  permanency 
of  the  relations  of  husband  and  wife,  and  of  parents  and 
children,  does  not  depend  on  the  fact  that  the  apostles  legis- 
lated  for  those  relations,  or  on  the  fact  that  they  prescribed  the 
duties  of  those  who  sustained  these  relations.  The  question 
whether  it  was  contemplated  that  those  relations  should  be 
permanent  in  the  earth,  lies  back  of  the  fact  that  the  apostles 
prescribed  the  duties  of  parents  and  children.  They  made 
laws  for  the  master — as  responsible  to  God — not  for  slavery  : 
for  the  slave — as  a  redeemed  man  and  a  suflerer — not  for  the 
perpetuity  of  the  system  which  oppressed  him. 

(2.)  It  is  not  fair  to  infer  from  the  manner  in  which  they 
prescribed  the  duties  of  masters  and  slaves  in  that  relation, 
that  they  approved  the  system,  and  that  they  desired  its  per- 
petuity. To  prescribe  the  duties  of  certain  persons  while 
sustaining  a  certain  relation  to  each  other,  cannot  be  construed  as 
an  approbation  of  the  relation  itself.  It  might  not  be  desirable 
for  him  who  gave  directions  about  the  right  mode  of  acting 
in  a  certain  relation,  to  attempt  to  disturb  it  at  that  time,  or  it 
might  be  impossible  at  once  to  remove  certain  evils  connected 
with  it,  and  yet  there  might  be  important  duties  which  religion 
would  enjoin  while  that  relation  continued.  Thus,  to  direct 
masters  to  render  to  their  servants  that  which  is  just  and 
equal ;  to  forbear  threatening,  knowing  that  they  had  a  master 
in  heaven;  to  be  kind,  equal,  and  just  in  their  dealings  with 
their  servants — which  is  the  extent  of  the  '  legislation'  of  the 
apostles  in  respect  to  them — cannot  with  any  justice  be  con- 
strued into  an  approval  of  the  system  :  for  as  long  as  that 


274  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

relation  continued,  whatever  might  be  their  duty  about  dis- 
solving  it,  there  were  certain  duties  which  they  owed  to  those 
under  them,  and  which  the  Christian  religion  made  it  impe- 
rative on  them  to  perform.  And  in  hke  manner,  to  direct 
servants  to  be  obedient  to  their  mastert  according  to  the  flesh ; 
to  obey  in  all  things  their  masters  according  to  the  flesh ;  to 
count  their  masters  worthy  of  all  honour ;  to  direct  them  to 
please  their  masters  well  in  all  things,  not  answering  again, 
not  purloining,  but  to  show  all  good  fidelity  ;  and  to  be  subject 
to  them  with  all  fear,  not  only  to  the  good  and  gentle,  but  also 
to  the  froward — which  is  the  extent  of  their  '  legislating'  for 
slaves — cannot  be  construed  as  an  approbation  of  the  system, 
or  as  expressing  the  opinion  that  it  would  be  desirable  that 
this  relation  should  always  continue.  While  it  continued, 
there  were  certain  duties  which  religion  required  of  them, 
whether  it  were  to  be  dissolved  or  not;  for  it  was  in  an  emi- 
nent manner  desirable  that  they  should  show  the  fair  influence 
of  religion  on  the  heart.  Even  on  the  supposition  that  the 
apostles  regarded  the  system  as  a  great  evil,  and  desired  the 
immediate  abolition  of  slavery,  as  long  as  the  relation  con- 
tinued, they  would  have  required  that  this  spirit  should  be 
manifested.  It  is  the  same  spirit,  certainly,  which  the  great 
body  of  the  most  decided  abolitionists  in  this  country  would 
desire  that  those  who  are  held  in  slavery  should  evince, 
though  this  fact  cannot  be  construed  into  an  argument  that 
they  approve  of  slavery. 

That  this  is  a  just  view,  Avill  appear  from  two  considera- 
tions, (a)  The  apostles  'legislated'  in  a  manner  quite  as 
decisive  respecting  the  relation  between  Nero  and  his  subjects, 
(Rom.  xiii.  1 — 7  ;  1  Pet.  ii.  13 — 17,)  and  yet  it  would  be  doing 
them  great  injustice  to  infer  that  they  approved  of  his  govern- 
ment, or  desired  that  it  should  be  perpetuated  on  the  earth. 
It  would  be  very  unfair  to  conclude  from  the  views  which 
they  expressed,  that  such  a  despotism  would  be  the  best  kind 
of  government  for  the  United  States,  or  that  it  would  be  de- 
sirable that  it  should  be  established  everywhere,  or  that  it  was 


STRTPTITIAL    \1F.WS    OF    SLAVKUY.  275 

sucli  as  God  approved,  or  even  that  in  any  sense  it  was  rii,^ht. 
And  yet,  whatever  obHLrntions  Christians  might  be  under  to 
modify  that  sfovernment  if  they  had  any  power  to  do  so,  while 
the  relation  which  they  sustained  to  it  continued,  there  were 
important  duties  which  they  owed  to  the  government  under 
which  they  were,  as  such;  for  even  under  the  hardships 
of  such  a  government,  they  were  under  obHgation  to  evince 
such  a  spirit  as  would  do  honour  to  the  gospel.  And  even 
if  the  apostles  had  given  just  the  instructions  to  Nero  which 
they  did  to  Christian  masters,  it  would  not  have  proved  that 
they  regarded  his  administration  as  a  good  one,  or  that  God 
desired  that  such  a  government  should  be  perpetuated.  If 
they  had  directed  him,  as  they  did  Chri.stian  masters,  to  '  ren- 
der to  his  subjects  thnt  which  was  just  and  equal,'  and  to 
evince  kindness,  and  tenderness,  and  fidelity,  'forbearing 
threatening,' — 'legislating'  for  hitn  in  that  relation,  it  would 
by  no  means  demonstrate  that  his  conduct  towards  his  subjects 
was  such  as  God  api)roved,  or  that  there  was  not  something 
essentially  wrong  in  the  kind  of  government  which  he  endea- 
vour.d  to  maintain  over  the  Roman  people.  (//)  The  same 
remarks  are  applicable  also  to  cases  of  persecution.  The 
apostles  '  legislated'  for  those  who  were  suffering  under  per- 
secution ;  that  is,  they  recognised  the  fact  that  Christians 
were  persecuted;  they  made  laws  for  those  who  were  perse- 
cuted; they  enjoined  on  them  the  performance  of  certain 
duties  in  that  condition,  as  much  as  they  did  for  those  who 
Were  held  as  slaves.  They  enjoined  on  them  the  duty  of 
showing  proper  respect  for  their  superiors ;  a  spirit  of  sub- 
onlination  and  submission  ;  patience  under  the  reception  of 
wrongs,  just  as  they  did  on  slaves  in  respect  to  the  wrongs 
and  oppressions  which  they  received  from  their  masters.  But 
assuredly,  it  would  be  doing  the  apostles  great  injustice  to 
infer  that  because  they  did  this,  they  approved  of  the  laws 
which  made  the  persecution  of  the  saints  inevitable,  or  that  they 
desired  that  the  system  under  which  those  laws  were  enacted 
should  be  perpetuated.     And  even  if  the  apostles  had  enjoined 


276  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

on  persecutors  the  same  thing  which  they  did  on  Christian 
masters,  it  could  not  be  construed  as  expressing  an  approba- 
tion of  their  conduct  in  maintaining  a  system  which  subjected 
so  many  innocent  Christians  to  so  grievous  wrongs.  Jfihey 
had  enjoined  on  them  the  duty  of  being  kind,  and  of  *  for- 
bearing threatening,'  and  of  '  rendering  to  all  that  which  is 
just  and  equal' — ^legislating^  for  them  in  the  case,  it  would 
be  a  very  inconclusive  method  of  reasoning,  to  infer  that  they 
approved  of  the  persecuting  system,  and  wished  to  be  under- 
stood as  desiring  its  perpetuity. 

(3.)  But  it  is  not  true  that  in  any  sense  the  apostles  'legis- 
lated' for  slavery  as  they  did  for  the  relation  of  husband  and  wife, 
and  parent  and  child.  It  is  not  true  that  they  ever  represented 
those  relations  as  parallel,  or  as  equally  desirable  and  acceptable 
to  God.  I  shall  have  occasion  to  refer  to  this  again,  but  would 
here  notice  the  following  things  in  regard  to  their  legislating 
for  those  who  were  in  this  relation — in  all  which  their  in- 
structions differ  from  those  respecting  the  relation  of  husband 
and  wife,  and  parent  and  child,  (a)  They  uniformly  repre- 
sent servitude  as  a  hard  condition,  and  as  in  itself  undesirable. 
1  Cor.  vii.  21  ;  1  Pet.  ii.  18 — 23.  Comp.  the  injunctions  to 
masters,  Eph.  vi.  9;  Col.  iv.  1.  But  where  do  they  represent 
the  condition  of  a  wife  or  child  as  necessarily  a  hard  and  un- 
desirable  condition  ?  (6)  They  enjoin  on  slaves  submission 
to  their  condition  as  a  hard  one,  and  one  in  which  they  were 
constantly  liable  to  suffer  wrong.  1  Pet.  ii.  18,  19:  "Ser- 
vants, be  subject  to  your  masters  with  all  fear;  not  only  to 
the  good  and  gentle,  but  also  to  the  froward,  for  this  is 
thankworthy,  if  a  man  for  conscience  toward  God  endure 
grief  [i.  e.  that  which  is  fitted  to  produce  grief,]  suffering 
wrongfully.''^  1  Cor.  vii.  21:  "Art  thou  called  being  a 
servant?  Care  not  for  it ^  That  is,  'though  it  is  a  hard 
condition,  yet  let  it  not  be  a  subject  of  deep  anxiety 
and  distress ;  in  the  humble  lot  in  life  where  God  has 
placed  you,  strive  to  evince  the  Christian  spirit,  and  show 
that  you  are  able  to  honour  religion,  rejoicing  in  the  hope 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVERY.  277 

of  immortal  freedom  in  a  belter  world.'  But  where  does 
an  apostle  alieinpt  to  console  a  wife  or  a  child  by  telling 
them  not  to  'care for  i/'  that  they  are  in  such  a  condition  ? 
How  would  a  child  interpret  such  a  direction,  that  though  he 
had  a  fatljer  over  him  when  he  became  a  Christian,  yet  that 
he  ought  not  to  'care  for  it,'  but  to  endeavour  in  that  hard 
condition  to  perform  his  duties  as  well  as  he  was  able,  and  to 
console  himself  with  the  reflection  that  after  all  he  was  a  child 
of  God,  and  was  in  that  more  important  sense  free  ?  (c)  'Vha 
principal  virtue  which  the  apostles  enjoin  on  slaves  to  culti- 
vate, is  that  of  patience  under  wrong — a  mild,  gentle,  and 
kind  spirit,  even  when  conscious  that  they  were  enduring 
wrong.  Si'e  the  passages  already  referred  to.  Comp.  parti- 
cularly 1  Pet.  ii.  18 — 23:  "This  is  thankworthy,  if  a  man 
for  conscience  toward  God  endure  grief,  suffering  wrongfully. 
For  what  glory  is  it,  if,  when  ye  be  buffeted  for  your  faults, 
ye  shall  take  it  patiently  ?  But  if,  when  ye  do  well,  and 
suffer  for  it,  ye  take  it  patiently,  this  is  acceptable  with  God. 
/\>r  even  hereunto  were  ye  culled^  Ye  were  called  by  your 
Christian  profession,  and  after  the  example  of  your  master — 
the  Lord  Jesus — "who,  when  he  was  reviled,  reviled  not 
again  ;  when  he  suffered,  he  threatened  not ;  but  committed 
himself  to  him  who  judgeth  righteously,"  to  evince  a  spirit 
of  patience  under  wrongs,  and  to  bear  them  submissively,  by 
committing  your  cause  unto  God.  But  what  other  relation 
of  life  is  there  in  which  the  leading  virtue  recommended  to  be 
cultivated,  is  patience  under  the  inJUction  of  wrong  ?  Is  that 
the  crowning  virtue  recommended  in  the  marriage  relation  ? 
Is  that  described  as  the  cardinal  virtue  of  a  son  or  daughter? 
(d)  They  represented  it  as  desirable  to  escape  from  servitude 
if  it  could  be  done ;  or  as  more  desirable  to  be  free  than  to  be 
in  that  condition.  Thus,  in  1  Cor.  vii.  21,  the  apostle  Paul 
says,  "Art  thou  called  being  a  servant?  Care  not  for  it: 
but  if  thou  mayest  be  made  free^  use  it  rather y  But  where 
is  any  thing  like  this  said  respecting  the  condition  of  a  wife 
or  child  ?     Where  is  it  implied  that  such  a  relation  was  so 

24 


278  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

hard  and  oppressive  that  it  would  be  desirable  to  escape  from 
it  if  possible  ? 

If  these  things  are  so,  then  it  is  clear  that  the  apostles  did 
not  '  legislate'  for  slavery  in  any  such  sense  as  they  did  for 
the  relation  of  husband  and  wife,  and  parent  and  child.  They 
never  regarded  the  relations  as  similar.  Every  thing  that 
they  said  in  the  way  of  legislation  is  entirely  consistent  with 
the  supposition  that  they  disapproved  of  the  system,  and  de- 
sired that  it  might  cease  as  soon  as  possible. 

II.  The  second  argument  relied  on,  from  the  facts  respect- 
ing the  manner  in  w^hich  the  apostles  treated  the  subject  of 
slavery  as  specified  above,  is,  that  if  they  were  opposed  to 
slavery  at  heart,  and  regarded  it  as  sinful,  their  course  was 
inconsistent  with  moral  honesty,  and  that  it  was  in  fact  one 
of  the  worst  forms  of  what  is  now  known  as  Jesuitism, 

This  argument  is  greatly  insisted  on  by  all  the  advocates 
of  slavery,  and  by  all  who  apologize  for  it  as  a  scriptural 
institution.  It  is  in  fact  the  strongest  argument  which  has 
been  adduced  on  that  side  of  the  question.  It  is  stated  in  as 
strong  a  manner  probably  as  it  can  be,  in  the  Princeton 
Biblical  Repertory,  in  the  passages  already  quoted,  pp.  234 — 
240.  It  is  also  urged  with  great  confidence  by  Dr.  Fuller  in  his 
Letter  to  Dr.  Wayland ;  and  in  order  that  the  full  force  of  the 
argument  may  be  seen  in  the  present  connection,  I  will  copy 
it  as  it  is  presented  by  this  eminent  Baptist  divine. 

"  In  the  remark  just  made,  I  supposed,  of  course,  that  you 
admit  some  sort  of  slavery  to  have  been  allowed  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and  suffered  by  Jesus  and  his  apostles.  A  man 
who  denies  this  will  deny  any  thing,  and  only  proves  how 
much  stronger  a  passion  is  than  the  clearest  truth.  Both 
Dr.  Channing  and  Dr.  Wayland,  with  all  respectable  com- 
mentators, yield  this  point ;  but  if  this  point  be  yielded, 
how  can  it  be  maintained  that  slaveholding  is  itself  a  crime  ? 
No  one  can  regard  the  noble  president  of  Brown  University 
wath  more  esteem  and  affection  than  I  do ;  from  his  argu- 


SCKll'TURAL    VI1,\VS    OK    SLAVKUV.  279 

ments,  however,  I  am  constrained  to  dissent.  His  position  is 
this:*  the  moral  precepts  of  the  gospel  condemn  slavery;  it 
is  therefore  criminal.  Vet  he  admits  that  neither  the  Saviour 
nor  his  apostles  commanded  masters  to  emancipate  their 
slaves ;  nay,  they  *  go  further,'  he  adds,  *  and  prescribe  the 
duties  suiit'd  to  both  parties  in  their  present  condition ;' 
among  which  duties,  be  it  remembered,  there  is  not  an  inti- 
mation of  manumission,  but  the  whole  code  contemplates  the 
continuance  of  the  relation.  Here,  then,  we  have  the  Author 
of  the  gospel,  and  the  inspired  propagators  of  the  gospel,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  indicting  the  gospel,  all  conniving  at  a  prac- 
tice which  was  a  violation  of  the  entire  moral  principle  of  the 
gosj/fel  I  And  the  reason  assigned  by  Dr.  Wayland  for  this 
abstinency  by  God  from  censuring  a  wide-spread  infraction  of 
his  law,  is  really  nothing  more  nor  less  than  expediency — 
the  apprehension  of  consequences.  The  Lord  Jesus  and  the 
apostles  teaching  expediency  !  They  who  proclaimed  and 
prosecuted  a  war  of  extermination  against  all  the  most 
cherished  passions  of  this  guilty  earth,  and  attacked  with 
dauntk^s  intre})idity  all  the  multiform  idolatry  around  thorn — 
they  quailed,  they  shrank  from  breathing  even  a  whisper 
against  slavery,  through  fear  of  consequences  !  !  And, 
through  fear  of  consequences,  the  Holy  Spirit  has  given  us 
a  canon  of  Scriptures,  containing  minute  directions  as  to  the 
duties  of  master  and  slave,  without  a  word  as  to  emancipation ! ! ! 
Suppose  our  missionaries  should  be  detected  thus  winking  at 
idolatry,  and  tampering  with  crime  in  heathen  lands. 

"Dr.  Channing  also  says, — 'Paul  satisfied  himself  with 
disseminating  principles  which  would  slowly  subvert  slavery. 
•&iti8fied  himself!'  but  was  he  so  easily  satisfied  in  reference 
to  any  act  which  he  regarded  as  a  dereliction  from  duty  ? 
Hear  how  he  speaks :  '  If  any  man  that  is  called  a  brother 
be  a  fornicator,  or  covetous,  or  an  idolater,  or  a  railer,  or  a 
drunkard,  or  an  extortioner,  with  such  an  one  no  not  to  eat.' 

•  I  need  hardly  say  that  the  arjrument  is  the  same  aa  Palcy,  b.  3,  ch.  3. 


280  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

*  Be  not  deceived  ;  neither  fornicators,  nor  idolaters,  nor  adul- 
terers, nor  effeminate,  nor  abusers  of  themselves  with  man- 
kind, nor  thieves,  nor  covetous,  nor  drunkards,  nor  revilers, 
nor  extortioners,  shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.'  'Whore- 
mongers and  adulterers  God  will  judge.'  'In  the  name  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  when  ye  are  gathered  together,  and 
my  spirit,  with  the  power  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  deliver 
such  an  one  unto  Satan  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh,  that 
the  spirit  may  be  saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus.' 
Such  was  Paul's  language ;  nothing  but  this  unyielding,  un- 
compromising condemnation  of  every  sin  could  content  him ; 
yet,  as  to  the  '  unutterable  abomination  of  slavery,'  he  is  a 
temporizing  pakerer  !  As  to  slavery,  which  '  violates  every 
article  in  the  decalogue,'  although  the  apostle  saw  it  all 
around  him,  and  members  of  the  church  guilty  of  it,  he 
declined  uttering  a  word — he  is  cowed  into  a  time-server,  a 
worker  by  concealed  and  tardy  indirections !  He  'satisfies 
himself,'  while  milHons  on  all  sides  are  sinking  into  hell 
through  this  crime — he  'satisfies  himself  with  spreading 
principles  which  would  slowly  work  a  cure  !  Craven  and 
faithless  herald  !  and  after  this,  w^ith  what  face  could  he  say, 

*  I  have  kept  back  nothing' — '  I  have  not  shunned  to  declare 
the  w^hole  counsel  of  God?'  Arguments  hke  these  refute 
themselves  ;  they  are  the  signal  failures  of  minds  masterful 
for  the  truth,  but  impotent  against  it ;  and  will  convince 
every  sincere  inquirer  that  to  denounce  slaveholding  as  ne- 
cessarily a  sin,  is  to  de^U  in  loose  assertion,  and  practically  to 
range  one's  self  with  the  infidel  and  scoffer."* 

These  are  strong  positions,  expressed  both  by  Dr.  Fuller 
and  by  the  author  of  the  article  in  the  Repertory,  in  vigorous 
language.  The  argument  is  not  capable  of  being  urged  in 
any  clearer  manner,  and  if  it  can  be  shown,  as  thus  presented, 
to  be  unfounded,  it  will  remain  disposed  of  for  ever.  It  is  in 
the  highest  degree  important  to  reply  to  it,  not  only  to  vindi- 

*  See  Fuller's  Letters,  pp.  4, 5, 6. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS   OF    SLAVKRY.  281 

cale  the  character  of  the  apo:?tles,  but  also  to  ascertain  the 
true  relation  of  the  New  Testament  to  the  subject  of  slavery, 
and  abo  to  furnish  instructive  lessons  about  the  wisest  course 
of  meeting  great  and  appalling  evils  in  the  world. 

The  true  question  is,  whether,  on  the  supposition  that  the 
apostles  regarded  slavery  as  an  evil  institution  ;  as  undesirable 
for  the  good  of  society  ;  as  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  religion 
which  they  preached  ;  as  so  olTensive  in  the  sight  of  God  that 
he  desired  its  removal ;  and  as  an  institution  which  the  reli- 
gion which  they  promulgated  was  intended  to  remove  from 
the  earth,  it  was  inoraiii/  honest  for  them  to  pursue  the  course 
which  they  did — to  admit  slaveholders  to  the  communion  ;  to 
baptize  them  ;*  to  speak  of  them  as  '  brethren  beloved  ;'  and 
to  give  them  counsel  for  their  conduct  in  that  relation,  without 
apprising  them  that  they  were  living  in  gross  sin,  or  requiring 
them  at  once  to  emancipate  their  slaves. 

This  inquiry  resolves  itself  essentially  into  two  questions. 
(1.)  Whether  they  meant  to  have  it  supposed  that  they 
approved  of  the  system,  and  desired  it  to  be  perpetuated  on 
the  earth,  in  the  same  sense  that  they  desired  that  the  mar- 
riage institution,  and  the  relation  of  parent  and  child  should  be 
perpetuated  as  desirable  for  the  best  interests  of  society  ;  and, 
(2.)  If  they  did  not,  whether  their  treatment  of  it  was  origi- 
nated by  a  false  notion  of  expediency  ;  by  the  fear  of  the  con- 
sequences of  ex|X)sing  its  evil,  and  in  fact  left  a  false  impres- 
sion on  those  whom  they  addressed,  in  regard  to  it. 

On  the  supposition,  then,  that  they  regarded  the  system  as 
evil,  and  desired  it  to  be  abandoned,  and  meant  that  religion 
should  undermine  it  and  remove  it  from  the  world,  what  in 
their  circumstances  was  the  path  of  wisdom  and  of  honesty  ? 
What  did  Christian  integrity  demand  of  them  in  the  accom- 
plishment of  their  object  ?  In  reply  to  these  questions,  and  in 
order  fairly  to  meet  the  argument,  I  would  make  the  following 
remarks : — 

•  bee  Fuller's  Letters,  p.  I'JG. 
21* 


282  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

.  (1.)  It  will  be  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  whatever  were 
the  reasons  which  induced  them  to  meet  slavery  in  the  manner 
in  which  they  did,  it  was  not  from  any  fear  of  the  conse- 
quences of  an  opposite  course.  Their  whole  conduct  shows, 
that,  whatever  motives  may  have  influenced  them  in  respect 
to  any  existing  evil,  it  was  not  the  dread  of  a  loss  of  popularity, 
or  of  comfort,  or  of  life.  It  is  true  in  reference  to  the  prevail- 
ing evils  of  the  world,  as  the  conductors  of  the  Biblical  Re- 
pertory say,  that  "  they  did  not  keep  back  the  truth  from 
the  fear  of  suffering.  They  called  God  to  ^witness  that 
they  declared  the  whole  counsel  of  God,  and  were  clear 
of  every  man's  blood."  It  is  true  that,  as  Dr.  Fuller  says, 
"  they  proclaimed  and  prosecuted  a  war  of  extermination 
against  ail  the  most  cherished  passions  of  this  guilty  earth, 
and  attacked  with  dauntless  intrepidity  all  the  multiform  idol- 
atry around  them."  On  all  hands  it  will  be  agreed  by  those 
who  are  acquainted  with  the  principles  on  which  the  apostles 
acted,  that  they  were  not  restrained  from  denouncing  what 
they  regarded  as  wrong,  from  fear  of  personal  consequences. 
If  it  be  a  fair  inference  from  this,  as  Dr.  Fuller  and  the  con- 
ductors of  the  Princeton  Repertory  suppose,  that  they  did  not 
regard  slavery  as  "  a  heinous  crime  in  the  sight  of  God,"  then 
the  inference  cannot  be  denied.  Whatever  conclusion  follows, 
it  is  to  be  conceded  that  the  method  in  which  the  apostles  met 
it  did  not  arise  from  the  fact  that  "  they  quailed,  or  shrunk 
from  breathing  even  a  whisper  against  slavery,  through 
fear  of  consequences."* 

(2.)  It  is  incumbent  on  those  who  believe  that  slavery  is 
inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  and  that  God 
regards  it  as  an  evil  and  undesirable  thing,  to  show  that  the 
manner  in  which  the  apostles  met  it  was  honest ;  that  it  did 
not  imply  connivance  at  an  acknowledged  evil ;  that  it  was 
not  a  course  fitted  to  produce  deception ;  and  that  there  were 
reasons  for  meeting  the  subject  in  this  manner,  which  did  not 
exist  in  the  case  of  idolatry  and  other  sins. 

•  Dr.  Fuller. 


SCRIPTUIL\L    VIEWS   OF    SLAVERY.  283 

In  illustmting  this  point,  therefore,  and  in  endcavourinir  to 
show  that  the  conduct  of  the  apostles  was  consistent  with  the 
belief  that  slavery  was  an  evil,  and  that  the  spirit  of  the  reli- 
gion which  they  propagated  was  opposed  to  it,  and  yet  that 
their  course  was  honest,  I  would  submit  the  following 
remarks : — 

(«)  There  were  reasons  for  meeting  this  evil  in  this  manner, 
which  did  not  exist  in  the  case  of  other  evils.  In  other  words, 
it  was  expedient,  and  yet  honest,  to  meet  it  without  making 
an  open  and  violent  assault  on  the  institution,  and  without 
denouncing  it  as  at  all  times,  and  in  all  circumstances  a  sin, 
and  without  denying  that  in  ff;!^/ circumstances  one  who  held 
slaves  could  be  a  good  man.  Or,  in  other  words,  there  was  a 
propriety  in  their  meeting  it  by  inculcating  fundamental 
truths,  wliich  would  gradually  but  certainly  remove  the  evil, 
nither  than  by  an  open  opposition  to  the  laws  in  the  case,  and 
a  denunciation  of  it  as  always  sinful.  The  general  principle 
is,  that  they  adopted  the  best  method  of  ultimately  removing 
the  evil  under  the  influence  of  Christianity,  without  lending 
to  it  any  such  sanction  as  to  leave  the  impression  that  they 
regarded  it  as  a  good  and  desirable  institution. 

There  are  two  kinds  of  expediency,  one  of  which  is  con- 
sistent with  moral  honesty,  and  the  other  of  which  is  not. 
Expediency  may  be  employed  in  a  good  cause  and  to  accom- 
plish good  ends ;  or  it  may  be  employed  in  a  bad  cause  and 
to  accomplish  evil  purposes.  The  word  ^'-expedient''''  means 
that  "which  tends  to  promote  the  object  proposed;  fit  or 
suitable  for  the  purpose."  An  "  expedient''  is  "  that  which 
serves  to  promote  or  advance  ;  any  means  to  accomplish  an 
end."  ^^ Expediency''''  is  "fitness  or  suitableness  to  effect 
some  good  end,  or  the  purpose  intended  ;  propriety  under  the 
particular  circumstances  of  a  case."*  In  itself,  therefore, 
eu'pediency  is  not  inconsistent  with  entire  honesty,  and  with 
the  most  manly  independrnce.    It  is,  in  itself,  a  characteristic 

•  Webeler. 


284  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

of  wisdom,  and  we  could  hardly  respect  a  man  who  did  not 
do  that  which  is  expedient^  in  the  sense  of  adopting  means 
suitable  to  the  end  which  he  proposes,  and  adapted  to  secure 
that  end.  "A  man  would  hardly  be  deemed  of  sound  mind 
unless  he  obeyed  the  dictates  of  such  an  expediency.  Nay, 
if  he  failed  to  avail  himself  of  such  means,  he  might  be 
morally  dehnquent.  For  instance,  if  a  man  were  charged 
with  the  accomphshment  of  some  good  design,  and  neglected 
to  use  the  means  suitable  to  effect  it,  or  still  more,  if  he  used 
means  of  a  directly  opposite  tendency,  we  should  all  declare 
him  culpable.  His  conduct  w^ould  show  that  his  interest  in 
the  work  was  not  sufficient  to  prompt  him  to  the  use  of  the 
proper  means  to  insure  his  success."* 

There  may  be  cases,  then,  in  which  expediency  is  right  and 
proper ;  and  there  may  be  cases,  also,  as  we  all  know,  in  which 
it  may  be  "mean,  contemptible,  cowardly,  and  wicked.'* 
When  it  is  wicked  and  mean,  the  evil  must  arise  from  some 
cause  aside  from  the  fact  that  the  act  seems  to  be  expedient. 
It  must  be  because  there  is  some  wrong  in  the  object  aimed 
at,  or  because  there  is  something  dishonest,  cowardly,  mean, 
or  wicked  in  the  measures  adopted  to  secure  it ;  something 
which  in  that  case  is  '  expedient,'  not  because  it  is  fit  and  suita- 
ble to  the  end,  but  because  it  involves  some  improper  conceal- 
ment of  the  truth ;  some  false  pretence,  or  some  dishonest 
trick  to  secure  the  end  in  view.  In  such  a  case,  an  act 
would  be  as  wicked,  as  an  honest  and  wise  expediency  would 
be  virtuous. 

Suppose,  for  instance,  a  man  goes  among  the  heathen  to 
preach  the  gospel.  If  he  should  study  the  character  of  the 
people  ;  if  he  should  be  prudent  and  not  needlessly  rouse 
their  prejudices  ;  if  he  should  conform  himself  to  their  modes 
of  dress  and  style  of  hving ;  if  he  should  evince  such  an  inte- 
rest in  them  as  to  win  their  confidence  and  afl^ections  ;  and  if 
he  should  present  the  gospel  with  sound  sense  and  practical 

•  Dr.  Wayland's  Letters  to  Dr.  Fuller,  p.  64. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVERY.  285 

good  judgment,  he  would  be  pursuing  a  wise  expediency,  for 
he  would  be  piirsuinc^  a  course  that  was  adapted  to  secure  the 
end  in  view,  and  every  thing  which  he  did  would  be  consist- 
ent with  the  strictest  honesty.  But  suppose  he  should  rely 
on  pious  frauds,  and  invent  false  testimonies  to  his  doctrines, 
and  pretend  to  work  miracles,  this  would  be  an  'expediency' 
that  would  be  manifestly  dishonest.  And  suppose  even  that 
it  might  be  attended  with  some  conversions,  still  that  would 
not  alter  the  case.  The  thing  itself  would  be  condemned  by 
ail  honest  men. 

In  like  manner,  suppose  that  in  propagating  the  gospel,  I 
adopt  some  of  the  evil  customs  of  the  heathen  ;  that  I  attempt 
to  avail  myself  of  their  known  reverence  for  sacred  shrines, 
and  forms,  and  places  ;  of  their  superstitious  regard  for  holy 
vestments,  and  for  those  who  sustain  a  priestly  character 
amonii:  them,  and  should  attempt  to  transfer  all  this  at  once 
to  Christianity  to  secure  its  success,  it  is  equally  clear  that 
this  would  be  a  wicked  expedient.  It  would  be  relying  on 
what  I  knew  to  be  false,  though  they  did  not  know  it,  and 
thougli  perhaj)s  they  might  never  perceive  it.  There  is  no 
honest  mind  which  would  not  condemn  it — except  just  so  far 
as  any  of  these  things  might  be  in  exact  conformity  with  the 
principles  of  the  religion  which  I  sought  to  propagate. 

Suppose,  further,  that  in  my  efforts  to  spread  my  religion, 
I  should,  for  the  sake  of  not  arousing  opposition  or  endanger- 
ing my  life,  leave  a  icholJ}/  erroneous  impression  of  the  moml 
character  of  certain  things  which  I  found  prevailing  among 
the  people — as,  for  instance,  of  the  crimes  of  idolatr}',  infanti- 
cide, or  intemperance.  If  my  conduct  could  be  fdirly  so 
construed  as  to  imply  approbation  of  these  things  ;  if  I  did 
not  leave  a  distinct  impression  that  I  regarded  them  as  evil ; 
if  I  should  connive  at  them  with  a  view  to  extending  my 
principles  ;  and  if  I  should  make  distinct  and  definite  arrange- 
ments contemplating  their  perpetuity,  and  leave  it  to  be  so 
understood,  there  could  be  no  ditfcrence  of  opinion  in  regard 
to  my  conduct.     It  might  be  possible  that  some  such  course 


286  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

would  secure  my  personal  safety,  and  it  may  even  be  conceived 
that  this  might  do  something  to  conciliate  the  favour  of  the 
heathen,  and  dispose  them  to  look  favourably  on  me  and  my 
doctrines,  but  no  one  could  hesitate  to  say  that  such  an  expe- 
dic^icy  would  be  morally  wrong. 

So,  if,  to  accomplish  my  ends,  I  should  attempt  to  make  my 
message  acceptable,  by  totally  withholding  a  part  of  the  truth ; 
or  by  modifying  it ;  or  by  adding  to  it ;  or  by  adapting  it  to 
what  should  be  demanded  by  popular  clamour,  no  one  could 
hesitate  to  say  that  I  did  wrong.  It  would  be  acting  from 
expediency  in  such  a  sense  that  no  one  could  approve  of  it. 

Such  and  similar  cases  are  instances  in  which  to  act  from 
*  expediency'  implies  guilt.  It  arises  from  fear ;  it  involves 
the  suppression  of  truth ;  it  leaves  a  false  impression ;  and 
no  man  can  look  upon  it  but  with  disapprobation,  and  no  one 
who  acts  in  this  way  can  hope  to  meet  the  approbation  of  God. 
If  the  apostles  really  beheved  that  slaveholding  was  wrong,  and 
yet  concealed  their  opinion  of  it  from  any  of  these  motives,  or 
so  acted  in  regard  to  it  that  they  left  the  impression  that  it  was 
a  good  and  desirable  institution,  it  would  be  impossible  to 
vindicate  their  conduct. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  there  may  be  cases  where  expe- 
diency is  a  virtue,  and  where  it  is  entirely  consistent  with 
honesty  and  sincerity.  In  such  cases,  there  is  no  designed 
suppression  of  the  truth  ;  there  is  no  bad  motive  ;  there  is  no 
withholding  of  offensive  doctrines  under  the  influence  of  fear, 
or  from  the  dread  of  the  consequences  ;  and  there  is  no  false 
plea  by  which  it  is  sought  to  advance  the  cause  in  hand. 
Such  cases  are  the  following  : — (a)  Instances  in  which  there  is 
conformity  to  some  custom  or  habit  among  a  people  that  is  not 
sinful,  with  a  view  not  to  excite  prejudice  or  needless  opposi- 
tion. Such  was  the  case  of  Paul,  who  'became  all  things  to 
all  men  that  he  might  by  all  means  save  some  ;  who  to  the 
Jews  became  as  a  Jew,  that  he  might  gain  the  Jews ;  and  to 
them  that  were  under  the  law  as  under  the  law,  that  he  might 
gain  them  that  were  under  the  law ;  and  to  them  who  were 


SCRIPTURAL    VIF.WS    OF    SLAVERY.  287 

without  law  as  without  law,  that  he  might  gain  them  that 
were  witliout  law.'  (1  Cor.  ix.  '^1,  2'^.)  Thus  he  performed 
a  vow  at  Jerusalem,  (Acts  xxi.  '21 ;)  and  thus  he  and  the  other 
apostles  and  early  Christians  of  Hebrew  origin  all  continued 
to  conform  to  the  Jewish  customs  after  they  had  ceased  to  be 
binding,  in  order  that  they  might  not  alarm  the  prejudices  of 
the  Jews,  and  give  rise  to  the  charge  that  they  were  hostile  to 
the  Mosaic  institutions.  Every  man,  who  is  wise,  does  the 
same  thing.  He  does  not  needlessly  arouse  opposition.  He 
does  not  make  war  on  things  which  are  indifferent.  He  does 
not  unnecessarily  give  occasion  for  charges  against  himself, 
which  Avould  defeat  the  whole  end  which  he  has  in  view. 
While  he  does  not  do  that  which  is  morally  wrong,  or  abandon 
any  principle  of  truth,  he  at  the  same  time  adapts  himself  to 
the  habits  of  thinking,  the  mode  of  living,  the  manners  and 
customs  of  those  whom  he  seeks  to  influence,  in  order  that 
his  views  may  meet  with  no  unnecessary  opposition,  {b)  An- 
other case  of  obviously  justifiable  expediency  is  that  of  in- 
sinuating our  views  by  parables  or  fables  which  will  convey 
the  truth  in  such  a  way  as  to  disarm  opposition,  and  secure 
the  assent  of  the  mind  to  some  principle  which  involves  all 
that  we  wish  to  inculcate,  before  the  proposition  itself  is  openly 
stated.  Such  was  the  parable  with  which  Nathan  addressed 
David;  such  were  the  parables  of  our  Saviour;  such  were 
the  fables  of  iEsop.  The  bare  and  bold  statement  of  the  truth 
which  it  was  desimble  to  get  before  the  mind  would  have 
created  revulsion,  and  the  attention  is  therefore  arrested  by  an 
interesting  narrative,  and  the  assent  gained  to  some  important 
principle  of  easy  application,  before  the  particular  truth  is 
stated  which  it  is  designed  to  convey  to  the  mind.  This  is 
allowable  *  expediency  ;'  and  this  has  been  practised  among 
all  people.  Prejudice  is  disarmed,  and  the  end  is  reached 
without  producing  revulsion,  (c)  A  similar  method  is  that 
of  laying  down  important  principles,  and  suffering  them  to 
produce  a  certain  effect  which  is  foreseen,  and  which  will 
operate  ultimately  to  remove  an  existing  evil.     Instead  of 


288  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

attacking  the  evil  at  once,  when  the  only  effect  would  be  to 
defeat  the  end  in  view,  it  may  be  far  belter  to  lay  down  cer- 
tain fundamental  truths,  the  operation  of  which  shall  be  to 
place  the  evil  ultimately  in  a  proper  light,  and  to  lead  by  cer- 
tain consequence  to  its  removal.  It  may  be  that  the  thing 
which  we  regard  as  wrong  is  not  so  seen  by  others ;  it  may 
be  that  they  have  had  a  training  which  has  sanctioned  it  in 
their  minds ;  it  may  be  that  they  hold  principles  in  regard  to 
it  which,  if  they  are  correct,  make  that  which  we  would  wish 
to  remove  correct  also.  To  secure  our  object,  therefore,  it  is 
necessary  that  more  correct  principles  should  be  held,  and  a 
patient  work  of  moral  instruction  becomes  absolutely  neces- 
sary. The  object  could  not  be  reached  in  any  other  way. 
The  evil  has  been  so  long  practised;  it  is  so  interwoven  with 
other  important  interests;  in  the  defence  of  it  there  is  such  a 
blending  of  truth  and  error,  that  it  is  necessary  to  disentangle 
the  skein,  and  to  bring  out  the  truth  by  the  faithful  inculca- 
tion of  correct  principles.  It  is  in  this  way  that  God  has  in 
fact  removed  most  of  the  evils  of  the  world  by  a  gradual  de- 
velopment of  principles  which  strike  on  great  wrongs  existing 
in  society,  thus  preparing  the  world  for  the  higher  develop- 
ments of  his  will ;  and  it  is  in  this  way  that  wise  men  com- 
monly approach  a  deep-rooted  evil.  It  is  the  expedient  and 
the  wise  course.  The  other  would  be  inexpedient  and  un- 
wise ;  for  it  would  not  be  that  which  would  be  necessary  to 
moral  honesty,  and  would  defeat  the  end  in  view.  These 
principles  can  be  justified  by  the  example  of  the  Saviour. 
His  parables,  as  before  remarked ;  his  treatment  of  the  pre- 
judices of  the  Jews,  and  his  methods  of  meeting  the  blind- 
ness and  errors  of  his  own  disciples,  all  illustrate  them. 
Thus  also  he  said,  at  the  close  of  his  ministry,  respecting  his 
mode  of  teaching,  "  I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto  you, 
hut  ye  cannot  bear  them  now.'^  John  xvi.  12.  So  the  apostle 
Paul,  (1  Cor.  iii.  1,  2,)  says,  "And  I,  brethren,  could  not 
speak  unto  you  as  unto  spiritual,  but  as  unto  carnal,  even  as 
unto  babes  in  Christ.     I  have  fed  you  with  milky  and  not  with 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVERY.  289 

meat:  for  hitherto  ye  were  not  able  to  bear  It,  neither'yet 
now  are  ye  ab/e."' 

This  principle  has  been  so  well  illustrated  by  Dr.  Wayland — 
to  whom  I  am  indebted  for  some  of  these  thoughts — that  I 
cannot  do  better  than  copy  a  few  of  his  remarks  on  the 
subject. 

"This  form  of  expediency — the  inculcating  of  a  funda- 
mental truth,  rather  than  of  the  duty  which  springs  imme- 
diately out  of  it,  seems  to  me  innocent.  I  go  further:  in 
some  cases  it  may  be  really  demanded.  Thus,  suppose  a 
particular  wrong  to  have  become  a  social  evil,  to  have  become 
interwoven  with  the  whole  framework  of  society,  and  to  be 
established  by  positive  enactment  and  immemorial  usage ; 
suppose  that  all  departments  of  society  have  become  adjusted 
to  it,  and  that  much  instruction  is  necessary  before  any  parly 
can  avail  itself  of  the  advantages  of  a  righteous  change ; 
suppose  also  the  whole  community  to  be  ignorant  of  the  moral 
principles  by  which  both  the  wrong  is  condemned  and  the 
right  established.  In  such  a  case,  the  wrong  could  only  be 
abolished  by  changing  the  sentiments  and  enlightening  the 
consciences  of  the  whole  community.  Here  it  seems  to  me 
that  it  would  be  not  only  allowable,  but  a  matter  of  imperative 
duty,  to  inculcate  the  principles  on  which  the  duty  rested, 
rather  than  the  duty  itself  The  one  being  fixed  in  the  mind, 
would  necessarily  produce  the  other;  and  thus  the  end  would 
be  in  the  most  certain  manner  accomplished. 

**  It  is  in  this  manner  that  the  New  Testament  has  gene- 
rally dealt  with  the  various  forms  of  social  evil.  Take  for 
instance  civil  government.  At  the  time  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  the  only  form  of  government  known  in  the  civilized 
world,  was  a  most  abominable  and  oppressive  tyranny.  Yet 
the  New  Testament  utters  no  precepts  in  regard  to  forms  of 
government,  or  the  special  duties  of  rulers.  It  goes  further. 
It  commands  men  everywhere  to  obey  the  powers  that  be,  so 
far  as  this  could  be  done  with  a  good  conscience  towards  God. 
But  it  at  the  same  time  inculcates  those  truths  concerning  the 


290  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

character,  rights,  responsibiUties,  and  obligations  of  man,  which 
have  been  ever  since  working  out  the  freedom  of  the  human 
race ;  and  which  have  received,  as  I  beHeve,  their  fullest 
development  in  the  principles  of  the  American  Declaration  of 
Independence.  Indeed,  in  no  other  manner  could  the  New 
Testament  have  become  a  system  of  religion  for  the  whole 
human  race,  adapted  to  meet  the  varying  aspects  of  human 
depravity.  If  it  had  merely  taught  precepts,  whatever  was 
not  forbidden  must  have  been  taken  as  permitted.  Hence, 
unchecked  wickedness  would  soon  have  abounded,  and  the 
revelation  of  God  must  have  become  a  nullity.  But  by  teach- 
ing principles  of  universal  application,  it  is  prepared  to  meet 
every  rising  form  of  moral  deviation,  and  its  authority  is  now 
as  all-pervading  as  at  the  moment  when  it  was  first  delivered. 
Our  Saviour,  as  it  appears  to  me,  carries  out  this  principle  to 
the  utmost,  when,  setting  aside  as  it  were  all  other  precepts, 
he  declares  that  our  whole  duty  is  summed  up  in  these  two 
commandments,  *Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all 
thy  heart,  and  thy  neighbour  as  thyself;  for  this  is  the  law 
and  the  prophets.'  That  is,  I  suppose  him  to  mean,  that 
cherishing  these  principles  in  our  hearts,  and  carrying  them 
out  into  all  our  actions,  we  shall  do  the  whole  will  of  God 
Avithout  any  other  precept."* 

A  very  material  question  then  arises  here  which  is  vital  to 
the  whole  argument.  It  is  this.  On  the  supposition  that  the 
apostles  regarded  slavery  as  contrary  to  the  spirit  and  prin- 
ciples of  the  religion  which  they  wished  to  propagate ;  as  a 
system  which  they  desired  to  destroy,  and  which  they  beheved 
Christianity  was  intended  to  destroy ;  in  other  words,  on  the 
supposition  that  they  were  enemies  of  slavery  and  wished  its 
abolition,  what,  in  the  circumstances  in  which  they  were 
placed,  was  it  proper  for  them  as  houest  men  to  do  ?  What 
would  be  the  wisest  and  the  best  course  to  reach  the  end  in 
view  ?     Would  the  proper  course  be  at  once  to  attack  and 

*  Letters  to  Dr.  Fuller,  pp.  73,  74,  75. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVI.RY.  291 

denounce  it,  and  to  declare  that  no  slaveholder  could  in  any 
possible  circumstances  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  hearen  ? 
^Vould  it  be  to  insist  that  every  master  should  emancipate  all 
his  slaves  as  an  indispensable-  condition,  of  being  admitted 
to  the  Christian  church  ?  The  apostles  were  strangers  in  the 
lands  where  they  published  the  gospel;  they  had  no  civil 
power  ;  they  had  no  agency  in  making  the  laws ;  they  had 
no  power  to  changfe  them.  Slavery  had  existed  for  ages  ;  its 
propriety  was  not  doubted  ;  it  was  defended  by  lawgivers  and 
moralists ;  it  was  interwoven  with  every  custom  and  habit  of 
social  life  ;  it  entered  into  all  the  arrangements  for  agriculture, 
for  the  mechanic  arts,  and  for  war;  and  it  was  supposed  to 
have  the  sanction  of  religion.  What  would  have  been  the 
effect  of  denouncing  it,  and  of  proclaiming  in  so  many  words, 
that  it  *  was  a  heinous  sin  in  the  sight  of  God,'  cannot  be  a 
subject  of  doubt.  They  would  have  been  regarded  as  dis- 
turl>ers  of  the  public  peace ;  as  travelling  entirely  beyond  the 
conceded  rights  of  religious  teachers ;  and  as  intermeddlers 
with  the  laws :  and  they  would  have  been  banished  at  once  from 
every  slaveholding  community — just  as  abolition  agents  are 
now  at  the  South. 

Would  not  the  following  principles,  in  conformity  with  the 
views  relating  to  expediency  above  laid  down,  be  all  that 
could  be  required  of  the  honest  enemies  of  slavery,  in  their 
circumstances  ? 

First,  not  to  pursue  such  a  course  as  would  defeat  the  very 
end  in  view,  while  it  was  not  yet  admitted  that  it  was  wrong 
or  a  moral  evil  by  those  among  whom  slavery  prevailed.  If 
it  had  been  conceded  to  be  a  wrong — to  be  sinful ;  if  it  had 
been  or  would  be  at  once  admitted,  as  it  would  be  in  the  case 
of  idolatry,  and  drunkenness,  and  murder,  and  falsehood,  and 
incest,  to  be  an  open  and  flagrant  violation  of  the  laws  of  God, 
then  the  case  would  be  different.  Then  it  would  be  plain 
that  it  could  not  be  tolerated  for  a  moment;  that  it  would 
be  proper  to  meet  it  as  an  indisputable  evil,  and  to  require  its 
immediate  abohtion.     Thus  it  was  with  the  sins  just  referred 


292  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

to.  They  were  plain  cases ;  things  positively  forbidden  by 
the  laws  of  Heaven ;  things  which  men  would  at  once  per- 
ceive and  feel  to  be  Avrong.  There  was  no  defence  which 
could  be  set  up  for  them ;  there  could  be  no  difference  of 
opinion  about  their  impropriety. 

Second,  it  would  be  obviously  demanded  of  honest  men  in 
such  circumstances  never  to  express  any  approbation  of  the 
system;  and  I  will  add,  never  to  do  that  which  could  be 
fairly  construed,  when  all  the  circumstances  were  considered, 
as  implying  approbation  of  the  system.  Either  of  these 
things,  even  on  the  supposition  that  they  should  be  regarded 
as  expedient^  would  be  an  instance  of  dishonest  expediency. 
On  the  supposition,  for  example,  that  by  representing  to  a 
large  slaveholder  that  slavery  was  entirely  consistent  with  the 
law  of  God  and  the  principles  of  the  religion  which  they 
preached,  in  order  that  he  might  thus  be  led  to  look  favourably 
on  the  new  system  of  religion,  and  induced  to  embrace  it,  it 
would  be  such  an  'expedient'  that  no  honest  man,  who  re- 
garded the  system  as  evil,  could  adopt.  No  considerations 
could  have  justified  upright  men  in  adopting  any  such  course 
in  reference  to  lying  and  licentiousness. 

Third,  it  would  be  obviously  demanded  of  honest  men  in 
these  circumstances,  that  they  should  lay  down  such  funda- 
mental principles  of  morahty  as,  when  fairly  applied,  would 
show  that  the  system  was  evil,  and  that  the  religion  which 
they  aimed  to  promulgate  was  opposed  to  it,  and  would  ulti- 
mately remove  it.  It  would  be  clearly  improper  that  they 
should  advance  any  principle  which,  if  yatV/y  applied,  would 
tend  to  sanction  or  to  perpetuate  it.  Thus,  it  would  have 
been  improper  that  they  should  state  any  pvincpple  which 
would,  when  fairly  applied,  tend  to  sustain  polygamy,  or  idol- 
atry, or  which  would  not  tend  to  remove  them  from  the  world. 

Fourth,  it  would  be  obviously  demanded  that,  as  honest 
men,  they  should  make  such  statements  and  such  arrange- 
ments, as  should  leave  the  fair  impression  on  the  minds  of 
those  to  whom  they  were  made,  that  they  desired  that  the 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  293 

system  should  cease,  nnd  that  their  instructions  could  not 
fairly  be  pleaded  as  sanclionino:  the  system.  This  would  be 
met  by  their  stating  such  views  of  man  and  of  redemption 
as  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  permanent  relations  of 
slaver}' ;  by  enjoining  such  duties  on  the  masters  as,  \{  fairly 
foUoweiU  would  lead  them  to  emancipate  their  slaves  as  soon 
as  possible  ;  by  such  statements  as  would  preserve  Christians 
from  the  purchase  and  sale  of  others ;  and  by  showing  that 
there  were  duties  incumbent  on  all  men,  and  which  all  were 
under  obligations  to  God  to  perform,  which  it  would  be  seen 
would  be  interfered  with  by  the  continuance  of  the  system, 
and  which  in  fact  could  not  be  performed  while  the  relation 
continued. 

If  these  things  were  done,  would  not  their  course  be  en- 
tirely honest,  0T\  the  supposition  that  they  were  opposed  to  the 
system  of  slavery?  Would  not  this  be  a  course  which  would 
fall  in  with  the  rules  of  justifiable  'expediency,'  as  explained 
above!  Would  it  not  be  in  fact  all  that  could  be  demanded 
in  the  case  ?  But  one  other  thing  could  possibly  be  supposed 
to  be  required  of  them  as  honest  men — to  denounce  it  always; 
to  exclude  from  the  church,  in  all  circumstances,  those  who 
were  engaged  in  it ;  to  proclaim  that  in  every  instance  it  was 
wholly  inconsistent  with  the  possession  of  the  Christian  hope  ; 
10  publish  that,  at  all  hazards,  it  was  every  man's  duty  at 
once  to  emancipate  all  his  slaves,  and  that  it  was  the  duty  of 
every  one  who  was  a  slave  to  rise  on  his  master  and  assert 
his  freedom.  But  was  that  demanded  ?  If  so,  why  was  it 
not  demanded  of  them  that  they  should  denounce  all  the 
crimes  of  the  Roman  emperor,  and  proclaim  the  evils  of  such 
a  government,  and  exhort  the  nations  to  free  themselves  from 
this  oppressive  yoke?  Why  was  it  not  demanded  that  they 
should  denounce  the  evils  of  the  gladiatorial  shows,  and  the 
other  barbarous  amusements  of  the  amphitheatre,  and  the 
thousand  other  evils  which  abounded  in  the  Roman  world  ? 
Was  any  thing  more  required  in  these  cases,  than  tiint,  in  all 

25* 


294  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

honesty,  they  should  lay  down  principles,  the  fair  application 
of  which  would  bring  these  barbarous  sports  to  an  end  ? 

It  is  still  asked,  however,  why,  if  they  regarded  slavery 
as  '  a  heinous  sin,'  they  did  not  treat  it  as  they  did  idolatry, 
and  murder,  and  theft,  and  hcenliousness  ?  How  could  they 
tolerate  it  any  more  than  they  could  those  evils  ?  How  could 
they  admit  a  man  to  the  church  who  practised  the  one,  more 
than  he  who  practised  the  other  ?  Would  they  admit  an 
idolater  to  the  church  ?  They  never  did.  Would  they  re- 
ceive to  the  communion  one  who  made  his  living  by  piracy  ? 
They  never  did.  Would  they  give  directions  to  one  who 
was  living  in  the  practice  of  aduUery,  or  incest,  how  to  con- 
duct in  that  relation  ?  They  never  did.  Would  they  address 
such  a  one  as  '  faithful  and  beloved  V  Assuredly  not.  To 
this  I  may  reply:  (1.)  All  those  were  acknowledged  and 
undisputed  sins.  No  one  could  set  up  a  defence  of  them ; 
no  one  could  urge  any  thing  in  their  favour,  or  in  vindication 
of  them.  They  were  open  and  palpable  violations  of  the 
law  of  God,  and  in  no  possible  circumstances  could  they  be 
right.  It  was  not  so  with  slavery.  It  would  not  at  once  be 
seen  and  admitted  to  be  wrong.  (2.)  There  are  certain  things, 
in  accordance  with  this  view,  which  are  evil  and  wrong,  but 
which  require  patient  instruction,  and  much  discussion  of 
principles  before  the  wrong  will  be  perceived,  and  where,  if 
denunciation  be  employed  instead  of  argument,  the  whole  object 
will  be  defeated.  An  instance  of  this  sort  has  occurred  in  our 
own  times.  It  is  now  generally  admitted  that  the  manufacture 
and  sale  of  intoxicating  drinks,  for  the  purpose  of  being  used 
as  a  beverage,  is  wrong;  that  it  tends  to  produce  evil  and 
only  evil ;  that  it  is  not  a  kind  of  business  which  should  be 
pursued  by  a  Christian  ;  and  that  it  is  the  duty  of  a  church 
to  keep  itself  pure  in  this  respect.  But  to  reach  the  present 
views  on  this  subject,  has  been  the  result  of  a  long  process 
of  argumentation,  and  of  an  examination  of  principles,  demand- 
ing the  patient  and  profound  inquiries  of  some  of  the  best  in- 
tellects in  the  world — for  the  whole  business  was  regarded  as 


SCRIPTUR.\L    VIEWS    OF   SLAVERY.  295 

honourable  and  lawful ;  it  was  sustained  by  the  laws  and  by 
|)ublic  sentiment,  and  it  was  patronised  by  numbers  of  the  best 
men  in  the  church.  And  yet  what  church  is  there  now  that 
would  deem  it  best  or  right  to  go  back  to  the  views  which 
prevailed  on  this  subject  thirty  years  ago?  Drunkenness^ 
indeed,  was  always  condenmed,  alike  in  the  New  Testament 
and  by  aJl  Christians — but  how  slow  a  })rocess  has  it  been  to 
perceive  the  wrong  of  that  business  which  tends  io  \)XOi\\xcQ 
drunkenness,  and  which  steadily  operates  to  keep  it  up  in  the 
world.  Oppression  and  cruelty,  and  the  withholding  of  wages 
which  are  due,  have  in  like  manner  always  been  condemned, 
ahke  in  the  New  Testament  and  by  all  Christians;  but  there 
were  reasons  why  there  should  be  as  slow  a  process  in  arriv- 
ing at  the  conclusion  that  that  system  which  involved  oppres- 
sion and  cruelty  and  the  withholding  of  wages,  is  wrong,  as 
existed  in  the  case  of  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicating 
drinks.  It  may,  indeed,  be  fairly  inferred  that  the  apostles 
would  not  have  approved  of  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  alco- 
holic liquors  as  a  beverage,  but  where  do  they  expressly  con- 
demn it  ?  (3.)  There  are  evils — great  and  acknowledged  evils 
— which  the  apostles  treated  just  as  they  did  the  subject  of 
slavery,  in  respect  to  which  they  laid  down  great  principles, 
and  left  them  to  the  certain  operation  of  time  to  secure  the 
changes  which  they  desired.  Such  was  the  case  m  regard  to 
polygamy — a  usage  which  indubitably  prevailed  in  their  time, 
and  in  the  countries  where  they  preached  the  gospel ;  and 
yet  it  would  be  as  difTicuh  to  find  a  distinct  declaration  in  the 
New  Testament  condemning  it,  as  it  would  be  to  find  one 
that  openly  condemns  slavery.  Such  was  the  case  also  in  re- 
gard to  the  barbarous  sports  of  the  amphitheatre — the  gladia- 
torial shows,  and  the  conflicts  with  wild  beasts  for  the  amuse- 
ment of  the  Roman  senators  and  matrons.  Such  things 
abounded.  The  apostles  knew  of  their  existence.  //  came  in 
their  way  to  speak  of  them — for  Paul  was  once  at  least  con- 
demned to  fight  with  wild  beasts  at  Ephesus,  and  often  had 
occasion  to  allude  to  the  sports  which  prevailed  in  the  Roman 


296  AN   INQUIRY   INTO    THE 

world.  And  yet  it  would  be  impossible  to  find  in  the  New 
Testament  one  single  text  which  expressly  condemns  these 
things,  any  more  than  one  which  expressly  condemns  slavery. 
Are  wc,  therefore,  to  infer  that  the  apostles  approved  of  these 
things,  or  that  they  wished  them  to  be  perpetuated,  or  that 
they  would  have  deemed  it  right  for  Christians  to  be  engaged 
in  them  ?  Such,  too,  was  the  case  in  respect  to  civil  govern- 
ment. Can  any  one  suppose  that  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  approved  of  the  government  of  Nero  ?  That  they 
regarded  his  cruelties  and  abominations  with  complacency  ? 
That  they  thought  it  would  be  desirable  that  such  a  govern- 
ment should  be  perpetuated  ?  Or  that  there  were  no  evils  in 
existing  governments  which  they  expected  that  time,  under 
the  operation  of  the  principles  which  they  laid  down,  would 
correct  ?  And  yet,  where  in  the  New  -Testament  shall  we 
look  for  a  distinct  condemnation  of  the  atrocities  of  Nero's 
reign  ?  There  were  many  deep  social  evils  on  which  Chris- 
tianity made  war,  and  which  it  intended  to  remove,  and  yet 
the  way  in  which  it  was  done  was  by  laying  down  principles 
which  would  ultimately  effect  the  change,  and  not  by  direct 
and  open  denunciation.  (4.)  The  apostles  as  freely  and 
openly  condemned  many  things  in  slavery,  and  indispensa- 
ble to  it,  as  they  did  idolatry  or  any  thing  connected  with  it. 
They  condemned  the  making  of  a  slave,  (1  Tim.  i.  10);  they 
condemned  all  oppression,  cruelty,  and  wrong ;  they  expressed 
their  views  on  these  points  without  ambiguity  or  hesitancy ; 
and  since  these  always  entered  into  slavery  then,  as  they  do 
now,  it  follows  that  they  expressed  themselves  in  a  way  on 
this  subject  which  could  not  be  misunderstood.  How  they 
did  this,  will  be  seen  in  a  subsequent  part  of  this  argument. 

The  conclusion  which  seems  to  follow  from  these  consider- 
ations, is,  that  there  were  many  existing  things  which  the 
apostles  regarded  as  wrong,  and  which  they  intended  the 
Christian  religion  should  abolish,  which  they  met,  not  by  open 
denunciation,  and  not  by  maintaining  that  those  which  prac- 
tised them  could  in  no  possible  circumstances  be  Christians, 


SCRirTUa.\L    MKWS    OF    SLAVT.RY.  297 

aiid  should  in  no  case  bo  adiniltod  to  the  privilef^es  of  church 
meuibt'rship,  but  by  condtMnninjx  certain  tilings  which  were 
aJways  connected  with  them,  and  by  laying  down  such  gene- 
ral principles  that  they  could  not  fail  in  the  end  to  secure 
their  removal.  Even  some  things,  in  respect  to  the  morality 
of  which  there  could  be  no  diflerence  of  opinion,  appear  to 
have  been  left  in  this  manner.  Thus,  every  thing  pertaining 
to  the  barbarous  sports  of  the  amphitheatre  were  left  to  the 
slow  but  certain  operation  of  Christian  principle  to  remove 
them.  Many  things  pertaining  to  idolatry  were  left  in  the 
same  manner.  Whether  it  was  right  to  partake  of  the  meat 
that  was  oflered  in  sacrifice  to  idols,  was  a  question  that  was 
left  to  be  determined  by  the  operation  of  Christian  principle. 
Evils  strike  their  roots  far  into  the  social  organization.  They 
become  sustained  and  sanctioned  by  customs,  habits,  and  laws, 
and  It  is  not  possible  to  remove  them  at  once  without  changing 
the  whole  framework  of  society.  It  is  necessary  to  advance 
slowly  to  the  work,  to  state  the  elementary  principles  of 
morals,  and  to  trust  much  to  the  gradual  but  certain  operation 
of  those  principles  to  effect  in  silence  the  work  of  reform. 

I  have  thus  endeavoured  to  show,  that,  on  the  supposition 
that  the  apostles  regarded  slavery  as  evil,  and  that  they 
designed  that  the  religion  which  they  prenched  should  ulti- 
mately remove  it,  there  were  reasons  arising  from  a  just 
♦  expediency,*  why  they  should  treat  it  as  they  did ;  and  that 
the  method  which  they  adopted  cannot  be  regarded  as  evi- 
dence that  they  approved  of  the  system,  or  that  they  desired 
its  perpetuity. 

(b)  I  would  observe,  therefore,  in  the  next  place,  that  this 
is  the  very  course  which  is  recommended  now  by  many  who 
would  not  wish  it  to  be  understood  that  they  are  the  advocates 
of  slavery,  or  that  they  regard  it  as  a  good  institution.  The 
course  which  they  recommend  is  that  of  patiently  inculcating 
principles,  and  instructing  the  master  in  his  duty,  and  trusting 
to  the  silent  influence  of  the  gospel ;  and  they  wish  it  to  be 
understood  that  they  regard  this  as  consistent  with  the  idea 


298  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

that  they  are  opposed  sincerely  to  slavery,  and  that  they  be- 
lieve the  gospel  will  ultimately  abolish  it.  They  would  be 
by  no  means  willing  that  the  course  which  they  recommend 
should  be  construed  as  implying  that  they  are  the  friends  of 
slavery,  or  the  apologists  for  it.*  But  if  they  insist  that  this 
construction  should  not  be  put  on  ^Aeir  recommendations,  why 
should  it  be  on  the  course  pursued  by  the  apostles  ?  If  in 
their  case  this  course  is  consistent  with  the  belief  that  they 
regard  slavery  as  an  evil,  why  should  it  not  be  in  the  case  of 
the  apostles  ? 

That  this  course  is  recommended  by  many  at  the  present 
day,  it  is  unnecessary  to  prove.  Equally  at  the  South  and 
the  North  it  is  demanded  that  there  shall  be  no  rude  and  vio- 
lent attack  made  on  the  system  ;  that  the  owners  of  slaves 
shall  not  be  denounced  as  men  who  cannot  be  Christians ; 
that  they  shall  not  be  excluded  from  the  church  because  they 
hold  slaves,  and  that  they  shall  not  be  held  up  to  pubHc 
opprobrium  and  scorn.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  maintained  that 
the  silent  operation  of  the  Christian  religion  will  gradually 
remove  the  system,  and  that  all  that  is  necessary  to  be  done 
is  to  go  on  patiently  inculcating  the  fundamental  principles 
of  the  gospel,  and  that  in  due  time  that  gospel  will  remove 
slavery  from  our  country  and  from  the  world.  The  views  of 
the  conductors  of  the  Princeton  Repertory,  who  may  be 
regarded  as  giving  utterance  to  the  sentiments  which  prevail 

*  Thus  the  conductors  of  the  Princeton  Repertory  are  quite  indignant 
at  the  supposition  that  the  course  which  they  and  their  friends  pursue 
should  be  construed  as  implying  that  they  are  in  any  way  the  advocates 
of  slavery.  They  say,  (llopcrtory,  1844,)  "The  very  title  of  the  book  to 
which  we  have  so  often  referred  is  <  A  Review  of  Dr.  Junkin's  Sy nodical 
Speech  in  defence  of  American  Slavery.'  Dr.  Junkin's  speech,  however, 
is  simply  an  argument  to  prove  that  slaveholding  is  not  a  crime,  and  there- 
fore that  'believing  masters  ought  not  be  excommunicated  from  the  church 
of  God.'  This  is  called  a  defence  of  American  slavery  !  i.  e.  of  the  whole 
system  of  slave  laws  now  in  force  in  this  country.  There  is  no  help  for 
men  who  will  act  thus." 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVERY.  299 

on  tliis  point  at  the  South,  are  expressed  in  tlie  most  decisive 
language.     Thus,  in  a  passas^e  already  quoted,  they  say  : 

**lt  is  on  all  hands  acknowledged,  that,  at  the  time  of  the 
advent  of  Jesus  Christ,  slavery  in  its  worst  forms  prevailed 
over  the  whole  world.  The  Saviour  found  it  around  him  in 
Judea;*  the  apostles  met  with  it  in  Asia,  Greece,  and  Italy. 
How  did  they  treat  it  ?  Not  by  the  denunciation  of  slave- 
holding  as  necessarily  and  universally  sinful.  Not  by  de- 
claring that  all  slaveholders  were  men-stealers  and  robbers, 
and  consequently  to  he  excluded  from  the  church  and  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  Not  by  insisting  on  immediate  emanci- 
pation. Not  by  appeals  to  the  passions  of  men  on  the  evils 
of  slavery,  or  by  the  adoption  of  a  system  of  universal  agita- 
tion. On  the  contrary,  it  was  by  teaching  the  true  nature, 
dignity,  equality,  and  destiny  of  men ;  by  inculcating  the 
principles  of  justice  and  love;  and  by  leaving  these  principles 
to  produce  their  legitimate  effects  in  ameliorating  the  condi- 
tion of  all  classes  of  society." 

Again  they  say  : 

"  We  think,  therefore,  that  the  true  method  for  Christians 
to  treat  this  subject,  is  to  follow  the  example  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles  in  relation  both  to  despotism  and  slavery.  Let  them 
enforce  as  moral  duties  the  great  principles  of  justice  and 
mercy,  and  all  the  specific  commands  and  precepts  of  the 
Scriptures." 

And  again,  in  their  article  in  1814,  they  reiterate  these 
views  still  more  distinctly  : 

"It  is  also  evident,  that  acting  in  accordance  with  these 
principles  would  soon  improve  the  condition  of  the  slaves, 
would  make  them  intelligent,  moral,  and  religious,  and  thus 
work  out  to  the  benefit  of  all  concerned,  and  the  removal  of  the 
institution.  For  slavery,  like  despotism,  supposes  the  actual 
inferiority  and  consequent  dependence  of  those  held  in  sub- 
jection.   Neither  can  be  permanent.    Both  may  be  prolonged 

•  There  is  no  evidence,  however,  as  I  have  endeavoured  to  show,  of  that. 


300  AN   INQUIRY   INTO    THE 

by  keeping  the  subject  class  degraded,  that  is  by  committing 
sin  on  a  large  scale,  which  is  only  to  treasure  up  Avrath  for 
the  day  of  wrath.  It  is  only  the  antagonist  fanaticism  of  a 
fragment  of  the  South,  which  maintains  the  doctrine  that 
slavery  is  in  itself  a  good  thing,  and  ought  to  be  perpetuated. 
It  cannot  by  possibility  be  perpetuated." 

But  from  these  views,  so  plainly  expressed,  shall  we  infer 
that  the  conductors  of  the  Repertory  wish  to  be  understood  as 
the  advocates  of  American  slavery  ?  Shall  we  infer  that  they 
regard  it  as  an  institution  which  it  is  desirable  to  perpetuate, 
and  which  the  Christian  religion  is  adapted  and  designed  to 
perpetuate  ?  However  such  a  conclusion  would  seem  to  fol- 
low from  some  portions  of  their  reasoning,  and  however  cer- 
tainly such  an  impression  will  go  forth  from  some  of  their 
statements,  adapted  to  soothe  the  consciences  of  slaveholders 
at  the  South,  yet  there  are  other  portions  of  their  argument 
with  which  such  a  conclusion  would  be  entirely  at  variance  ; 
portions  in  which  they  distinctly  express  the  opinion  that 
the  system  is  an  evil,  and  that  the  effect  of  the  gospel 
would  be  gradually  to  remove  it,  because  it  is  so.  Thus  they 
say:— 

"  We  have  little  apprehension  that  any  one  can  so  far  mis- 
take our  object,  or  the  purport  of  our  remarks,  as  to  suppose 
either  that  we  regard  slavery  as  a  desirable  institution^  or 
that  we  approve  of  the  slave  laws  of  the  Southern  states.  So 
far  from  this  being  the  case,  the  extinction  of  slavery,  and 
the  amelioration  of  those  laws,  are  as  sincerely  desired  by  us, 
as  by  any  of  the  abolitionists. 

"  If  it  be  asked  what  would  be  the  consequence  of  thus 
acting  on  the  principles  of  the  gospel,  of  following  the 
example  and  obeying  the  precepts  of  Christ  ?  We  answer, 
the  gradual  elevation  of  the  slaves  in  intelligence,  virtue,  and 
wealth  ;  the  peaceable  and  speedy  extinction  of  slavery  ;  the 
improvement  in  general  prosperity  of  all  classes  of  society, 
and  the  consequent  increase  in  the  sum  of  human  happiness 
and  virtue.     This  has  been  the  result  of  acting  on  these  prin- 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVERY.  301 

ciples  in  all  past  ao-os  ;  and  just  in  proportion  as  they  have 
hcon  faiihtully  obscrveil. 

"  Besides  the  two  meiliods  mentioned  a}x)ve,  in  which 
slavery  dies  a  natural  and  easy  death,  there  are  two  others 
by  which,  as  history  teaches  us,  it  may  be  brought  to  an  end. 
Tlie  one  is  by  the  non-slaveholders,  in  virtue  of  their  autho- 
rity in  the  slate  to  which  the  slaves  and  their  masters  belonged, 
passing  laws  for  its  extinction.  Of  this,  the  Northern  states 
and  Great  Britain  are  examples.  The  other  is  by  servile 
insurrections.  The  former  of  these  two  methods  is  of  course 
out  of  the  question,  as  it  regards  most  of  the  Southern  states ; 
for  in  almost  all  of  them  the  slave-owners  have  the  legislative 
power  in  their  own  hands.  7Vie  South,  therefore,  has  to 
choose  between  emancipation  by  the  silent  and  holy  injlucnce 
of  the  gospel,  securing  the  elevation  of  the  slaves  to  the 
stature  and  character  of  freemen,  or  to  abide  the  issue  of  a 
loDg-conlinued  conflict  against  the  laws  of  God." 

iSow  if  it  is  fair  to  conclude  that  the  views  entertained  by  the 
conductors  of  the  Repertory,  when  they  recommend  the  in- 
culcation of  the  relative  duties  of  the  master  and  the  slave,  and 
the  silent  influence  of  the  gospel,  are  not  inconsistent  with  the 
belief  that  they  do  not  regard  "slavery  as  a  desirable  institu- 
tion," and  that  they  suppose  the  gospel  would  produce  its 
certain  extinction,  it  is  fair  to  infer  the  same  thing  of  the 
apostles,  and  to  conclude  that  they  did  not  regard  it  as  "  a  de- 
sirable institution,"  and  that  they  supposed  they  were  adopt- 
ing the  most  wise  and  judicious  means  to  remove  what  they 
considered  as  an  evil.  Moreover,  if  the  course  which  is 
pursued  by  the  conductors  of  the  Repertory  be  such  as  to 
free  thejn  from  the  charge  of  Jesuitism  and  dishonest  dealing, 
while  they  are  recommending  a  method  adapted  to  secure  the 
entire  removal  of  the  system — by  a  quiet  influence — by  the 
inculcation  of  principles — by  the  silent  operation  of  the  system 
♦producing  the  gradual  elevation  of  the  slaves  in  intelligence, 
virtue,  and  worth,  and  the  ptaccublc  and  spkedv  exti)iction  of 
slavery' — why  should  they  have  inferred  that  the  very  same 

20 


302  AN    INQUIRY   INTO    THE 

course,  if  pursued  by  the  apostles,  would  have  been  dishonest 
and  Jesuitical  ?  Why  should  it  be  charged  on  them  as  wrong, 
when  the  same  course  is  recommended  by  those  who  admit 
that  the  gospel  would  remove  it  as  *  an  undesirable  institution,' 
and  who  become  indignant  when  it  is  suggested  that  they 
are  the  advocates  of  slavery  or  the  apologists  for  it?  Would 
they  not  desire  that  it  should  be  understood  that,  while  they 
recommend  this  course,  they  are  the  friends  of  liberty ;  that 
they  prefer  freedom  for  themselves  and  their  children  to  bond- 
age ;  that  they  suppose  that  the  gospel  will  promote  liberty 
wherever  it  has  its  fair  influence  in  the  world,  and  that  it  con- 
tains principles  which  are  hostile  to  slavery  ?  Would  they 
wish  it  to  be  supposed  that  they  desire  that  slavery  should  be 
extended  and  perpetuated  on  the  earth?  Assuredly  not — 
for  they  express  the  belief  that  the  effect  of  the  silent 
influence  of  Christianity  would  be  to  remove  it  entirely 
from  the  world ;  that  is,  that  it  is  an  evil — for  Christianity 
removes  nothing  that  is  good.  The  doctrine  of  the  Princeton 
Repertory,  as  I  understand  it,  is,  that  men  are  to  go  into  those 
portions  of  our  country  in  which  slavery  exists,  and  to  incul- 
cate the  truths  of  the  gospel ;  to  instruct  the  master  and  the 
slave  in  their  respective  duties  ;  to  lay  down  principles  which 
will  gradually  remove  the  evils  of  the  system,  and  ultimately 
abolish  it  altogether  ;  and  to  do  this  icith  a  viejv  and  inten- 
tion that  this  shall  be  the  result.  Is  this  course  honest,  or  is 
it  Jesuitical  ?  If  honest  now,  was  it  not  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles  ?  If  it  is  consistent  now  with  a  sincere  aversion  to 
the  system,  and  a  belief  that  the  principles  of  the  gospel  are 
opposed  to  it,  was  it  not  then  ?  Would  it  be  exactly  right  for 
any  one,  from  the  course  which  they  recommend,  to  represent 
the  conductors  of  the  Repertory  as  the  friends  and  advocates 
of  slavery,  and  as  desiring  its  perpetuity  ?  If  it  would  not, 
is  it  proper  to  represent  the  apostles,  when  pursuing  just  such 
measures  as  they  recommend,  as  the  friends  of  the  system, 
or  as  Jesuitical  in  their  manner  of  treating  it  ?  The  whole 
matter  on  this  point  is  clear.     If  the  apostles  supposed  that 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVERY.  303 

the  gospel  which  they  preached  would  ultimately  abolish  the 
system,  they  regtirded  it  as  an  evil.  If  they  left  that  impres- 
sion as  fairly  deducible  from  their  writings,  then  they  were 
honest  men,  and  cannot  be  charged  with  duplicity. 

(f)  I  would  remark,  then,  that  they  did  not  leave  a  false 
impression  on  this  subject.  They  did  not  leave  it  to  be  fairly 
deduced  from  their  conduct  or  their  writings  that  they  re- 
garded it  as  a  good  system,  or  as  desirable  to  be  perpetuated. 
This  point  will  be  more  fully  considered  in  another  part  of 
the.  argument.  Here,  it  may  be  observed,  in  general,  that 
they  never  enjoin  it  .is  a  duty,  or  speak  of  it  as  proper  or 
desirable,  for  Christians  to  hold  slaves  ;  they  never  express 
any  approbation  whatever  of  the  system  ;  they  never  speak 
of  it  as  they  do  of  marriage  and  similar  institutions,  as  honour- 
able ;  they  never  enjoin  it  on  the  masters  to  continue  to  hold 
their  slaves  in  bondage  ;  they  never  even  say  to  a  slave  that 
it  is  right  for  his  master  to  hold  him  in  bondage,  or  recom- 
mend obedience  or  submission  on  that  ground  ;  they  never 
leave  the  impression  on  his  mind  that  liberty  would  not  be 
better  than  sen-itude.  They  represent  it  as  a  hard  system  ;  lay 
down  principles  which  would  lead  every  Christian  master,  if 
he  followed  them,  to  emancipate  his  slaves  as  soon  as  possible; 
endeavour  to  comfort  slaves  as  in  a  condition  that  was  hard 
and  undesirable ;  advise  them  to  avail  themselves  of  the 
opportunity  of  becoming  free  if  it  is  in  their  power,  (1  Cor. 
vii.  21,  ti  xai  fivmaou);  and  direct  them,  if  they  cannot  obtain 
their  freedom  on  earth,  to  look  forward  to  that  world  where 
every  fetter  will  be  broken,  and  they  will  be  free  for  ever.  If 
it  shall  appear,  as  I  trust  it  will,  that  the  apostles  gave  this 
representation  of  slavery,  then  it  is  doing  them  great  injustice 
to  speak  of  them  as  friends  of  the  system,  or  to  say  that  their 
conduct  was  chargeable  with  pusillanimity  or  duplicity. 

{(t)  One  other  remark  should  be  made  here,  in  inquiring 
whether  they  were  honest  men  if  they  were  really  opposed 
to  slavery,  and  how  far  their  conduct  should  direct  us  in  the 
treatment  of  this  subject.     It  is,  that  they  were  a\\  foreigners 


304  AN    INQUIRY   INTO    THE 

in  those  countries  where  slavery  prevailed.  They  had  no 
agency  in  making  or  administering  the  laws.  We  have.  We 
make  and  administer  the  laws  ourselves.  The  apostles  could 
not  change  the  state  of  things  then  existing  by  a  vote.  The 
American  people  can.  They  had  no  vote  ;  they  could  effect 
changes  in  a  community  only  by  a  slow  moral  influence.  The 
people  of  the  slaveholding  states  can  produce  changes  on  this 
subject  at  the  polls  ;  can  make  any  changes  which  they  please. 
Their  responsibility,  then,  was  of  a  different  kind  from  that 
of  the  people  of  the  slaveholding  states.  The  only  thing 
which  they  could  do  was  to  lay  down  principles  ;  to  mould 
the  public  mind  by  a  moral  influence  ;  and  to  leave  the  im- 
pression of  their  opinions  on  the  age  in  which  they  lived. 
The  responsibility  of  the  people  where  slavery  exists  in  our 
land  is  of  a  different  character  altogether.  The  question  is 
whether  they  shall  sustain  the  system  by  their  votes ;  or 
whether,  in  connection  with  such  moral  influences  as  may 
be  used,  they  shall  use  the  power  which  they  have,  and  put 
an  end  to  it :  and  whatever  may  be  their  duty  on  that  point, 
it  is  clear  that  they  cannot  refer  to  the  example  of  the  apostles 
to  guide  them  in  it.  They  never  could  cast  a  vote  that  could 
in  any  way  affect  slavery  ;  they  could  do  nothing  in  making 
or  administering  the  laws  which  sustained  it. 

§  3.  The  question  whether  the  general  conduct  of  the  Jipos- 
ties  is  consistent  with  the  belief  that  they  approved  of 
Slavery,  and  desired  its  perpetuity. 

A  very  material  question  here  presents  itself,  which  is, 
whether  the  general  conduct  of  the  apostles,  above  referred  to, 
is  consistent  with  the  supposition  that  they  regarded  slavery 
as  a  good  institution,  and  desired  that  it  should  be  perpe- 
tuated ?  Was  it  such  as  to  make  a  Christian  master  feel  that 
he  was  doing  right,  or  acting  consistently  with  his  religion,  in 
asserting  a  claim  of  property  over  those  who  were  his  fellow 
Christians  ? 


i 


SCRirTUIL\L   VIEWS   OF    SLAVKRY.  305 

In  examininiT  the  method  in  which  they  treated  the  subject, 
wilii  relorence  to  these  points,  1  would  make  the  following 
remarks  : — (1.)  No  argument  in  favour  of  slavery  can  be  de- 
rived from  any  express  statements  in  tho  New  Testament 
ailirming  its  justice  or  propriety.  This  is  not  pretended  by 
any  of  the  advocates  of  slavery,  and  obviously  cannot  be. 
There  are  no  such  statements  of  its  propriety  ;  of  the  desira- 
bieness  of  the  relation  ;  of  the  purpose  of  God  that  it  should 
be  perpetuated  in  the  world.  It  is  impossible  for  an  advocate 
of  slaver}"  to  appeal  to  the  New  Testament  to  sustain  him  in 
the  right  which  he  claims  over  a  slave,  in  any  such  sense  as 
a  man  can  appeal  to  the  New  Testament  to  sanction  his  right 
to  worship  God  ;  to  search  the  Scriptures  ;  to  enjoy  the  avails 
of  his  own  labour;  to  form  his  own  opinions ;  to  control  his 
children,  &c.  And  this,  in  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  is 
much.  At  a  time  when  slavery  prevailed  everywhere,  it 
could  not  but  have  occurred  to  those  to  whom  the  gospel 
was  preached,  to  inquire  whether  it  was  right  and  proper, 
and  whether  it  was  consistent  with  the  Christian  religion. 
There  would  be  tender  and  troubled  consciences  on  the  sub- 
ject. It  was  in  fact  a  matter  of  discussion  among  the  heallien 
themselves  whether  it  was  right,  and  many  of  their  philoso- 
phers had  declared  themselves  decidedly  against  it.*  Thus, 
Alcidimas,  the  scholar  of  Gorgias  of  Leonlium,  says:  "All 
come  free  from  the  hands  of  God ;  nature  has  made  no  man  a 
slave."  Philemon  says:  "Though  he  is  a  slave,  yet  he  has 
the  same  nature  as  ourselves.  No  one  was  ever  born  a  slave, 
though  his  body  may  be  brought  by  misfortune  into  subjec- 
tion." Aristotle,  indeed,  vindicated  slavery,  on  the  ground  of 
the  natural  superiority  of  one  man  over  another.  Xenophon 
and  Socrates  raised  no  objection  against  the  institution  of 
slavery.  Plato,  in  his  Republic,  only  desires  that  no  Greeks 
may  be  reduced  to  slavery.     The  question,  therefore,  among 

•  See   the  article  of  Prof.  B.  B.  Edwards  on    •<  Slavery  in    Ancient 
Greece,"  in  the  Biblical  Rei>ository,  vol.  v.,  pp.  155 — IGO. 

2t>* 


306  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

the  Greeks  was  unsettled,  and  it  was  regarded  as  a  debatable 
matter  whether  slavery  was  right  or  wrong.  Many  of  the 
philosophers  had  doubts  of  its  justice  and  propriety,  and  un- 
questionably many  more  of  the  common  people  had.  Now, 
in  these  circumstances,  it  is  much  that  there  is  no  express 
permission  of  it  in  the  New  Testament ;  that  there  is  no  un- 
equivocal assertion  in  favour  of  the  system ;  that  there  is 
no  unqualified  declaration  of  an  apostle  that  would  have  put 
these  scruples  to  rest. 

Equally  clear  is  it  that  there  is  no  express  permission 
given  to  Christians  to  hold  slaves.  There  is,  in  the  New 
Testament,  no  reference  to  the  fact  that  it  was  tolerated  in  the 
Mosaic  institutions ;  there  is  no  statement  that  it  had  ever 
been  or  was  right  that  men  should  be  bought  and  sold ;  there 
is  no  intimation  that  it  was  regarded  as  a  good  and  desirable 
institution,  and  that  it  was  intended  that  it  should  be  perpe- 
tuated. If  it  shall  appear  that  the  apostles  laid  down  any 
principles  which  would  seem  to  militate  against  the  institu- 
tion, and  to  raise  any  scruples  in  the  minds  of  conscientious 
men  who  held  slaves,  they  were  at  no  pains  to  explain 
themselves,  or  to  give  ease  to  a  conscience  that  might  be 
troubled,  on  the  subject.  And  if  a  Christian  master  at  the 
present  time,  either  from  the  workings  of  natural  humanity  in 
his  soul,  or  from  the  influence  of  the  principles  laid  down  in 
the  New  Testament,  should  be  troubled  in  h's  conscience  in 
regard  to  his  right  to  hold  slaves,  there  is  no  part  of  the 
apostolic  writings  to  which  he  could  turn  to  allay  his  feehngs 
and  calm  his  scruples,  by  any  thing  like  a  distinct  declaration 
that  slavery  is  right.  Now,  in  regard  to  such  an  institution, 
so  much  apparently  against  human  rights,  and  against  the 
principles  of  the  New  Testament,  it  is  not  too  much  to 
demand  of  those  who  suppose  that  it  is  sanctioned  by  the 
apostles,  that  they  should  adduce  some  express  statement 
to  that  effect,  or  some  distinct  permission  to  Christians  to 
hold  their  fellow-men  in  bondage.     But  it  is  clear  that  if 


SCRIPTUILVL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  307 

the  continuance  of  slavery  depended  on  this,  universal  freedom 
would  be  inevitable. 

(•2.)  rs'o  argument  in  favour  of  slavery  can  be  derived  from 
the  precepts  of  the  apostles  to  the  masters, 

I  have  already  conceded  that  the  apostles  admitted  holders 
of  slaves  to  the  church,  on  evidence  that  they  were  truly  con- 
verted; and  that  they  addressed  iini)orlant  j)rccepts  to  them  m 
tliat  relation;  and  tiiat  among  those  precepts  they  did  not 
require  them  immediately  to  emancipate  their  slaves,  as  a 
condition  of  p^ood  slandinjr  in  the  church. 

The  question  now  is,  whether  this  fact  can  be  fairly  con- 
strued as  demonstrating  that  they  regarded  slavery  as  right, 
and  designed  that  it  should  be  perpetuated.  The  affirmative 
of  this  is  confidently  maintained  by  the  advocates  of  the 
system.     Thus  Dr.  Fuller*  says  : 

"  I  come  now  to  what  I  have  announced  as  proof  on  the 
question  before  us.  It  is  the  precepts  to  masters.  And 
here  let  it  be  still  remembered,  that  the  Old  Testament  is  con- 
stantly referred  to  by  the  apostles  as  of  divine  origin,  and  that 
there  slavery  had,  by  express  precept,  been  sanctioned  ;  and  I 
put  it  to  any  one,  whether  the  precepts  to  masters,  enjoining 
of  course  their  whole  duty,  and  not  requiring,  not  exhorting 
them  to  emancipate  their  slaves,  are  not  conclusive  proof  that 
the  apostles  did  not  consider  (and,  as  a  New  Testament  pre- 
cept is  for  all  ages,  that  no  one  is  now  justified  in  denouncing) 
slaveholding  as  a  sin.  These  precepts  are  so  regardful  of  the 
slave  that  they  even  require  the  master  to  '  forbear  threaten- 
ing,' yet  not  an  intimation  as  to  emancipation.  These  pre- 
cepts were  to  men  anxious  to  know  the  whole  will  of  God,  and 
ready  to  die  (as  multitudes  did  die)  rather  than  commit  sin, 
and  who  were  not  prevented  by  law,  as  we  are,  from  giving 
liberty  to  their  bondmen.  Yet  the  apostles  do  not  even  insi- 
nuate that  slaveholding  is  a  sin.  The  apostles  solemnly  took 
heaven  to  witness  that  they  had  '  kept  back  nothing ;'  and  in 
addressing,  not  only  the  people,  but  the  pastors,  who  were  to 

•  Letters  to  Dr.  Wayland,  pp.  194, 195. 


308  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

teach  the  people  and  bequeath  their  ministry  to  their  succes- 
sors, they  asserted  their  purity  from  the  blood  of  all  men,  be- 
cause they  '  had  not  shunned  to  declare  the  whole  counsel  of 
God.'  Yet  they  had  shunned  even  to  hint  to  masters  that 
they  were  living  in  a  *  sin  of  appalling  magnitude  ;'  and  had 
kept  back  truth,  which,  if  you  are  right,  was  of  tremen- 
dous importance.  Lastly,  a  whole  epistle  (to  which  you  do 
not  allude)  was  addressed  to  a  pious  master,  whom  Paul  styles 
a  'brother  dearly  beloved  ;'  and  its  entire  contents  were  about 
his  slave.  This  letter  was  written,  too,  when  the  apostle 
styles  himself  '  Paul  the  aged,'  sixty  or  seventy  years  after  the 
first  promulgation  of  the  gospel,  and  when  surely  the  spirit 
and  principles  you  speak  of  ought  to  have  begun  to  operate." 

The  supposed  argument  from  the  epistle  to  Philemon,  oa 
which  much  reliance,  also,  is  placed,  will  be  considered  in 
another  place.  In  reference  to  the  other  portions  of  the  argu- 
ment, I  would  make  the  following  remarks : — The  precepts 
addressed  to  masters,  as  such,  in  the  New  Testament,  are  two, 
and  two  only:  Eph.vi.9,  "And  ye,  masters,  do  the  same  things 
unto  them,  forbearing  threatening,  knowing  that  your  master 
also  is  in  heaven ;  neither  is  there  respect  of  persons  with 
him ;"  and  Col.  iv.  1,  "  Masters,  render  unto  your  servants  that 
which  is  just  and  equal,  knowing  that  ye  also  have  a  master 
in  heaven."  There  are  no  other  passages  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment which  can  be  considered  as  directly  addressed  to  the 
owners  of  slaves  ;  and  if  a  slaveholder  can  take  shelter  under 
any  such  address  to  himself,  as  sanctioning  his  claim,  it  must 
be  found  in  these  two  verses.  Let  us  inquire,  then,  whether 
an  owner  of  slaves  could  find  a  sanction  for  continuing  this 
relation  in  these  passages  of  the  New  Testament.  To  deter- 
mine this,  it  is  necessary  to  look  at  them  in  connection  with 
certain  other  declarations  of  the  New  Testament,  which  the 
owners  of  slaves  could  not  but  regard  as  demanding  their 
attention. 

(«)  What  do  these  passages  really  prove  ?  What  sanction 
do  they  give  to  slavery  ?     What  right  do  they  give  to  the 


SCRirrUILiL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVERY.  309 

master  to  continue  the  relation?  They  simply  inculcate  on 
masters  the  duly  of  treatingr  their  slaves  as  they  would  wish  to 
be  treated,  and  to  remember  that  they  have  a  master  in  heaven. 
Do  they  say  that  the  master  has  a  right  to  lioid  them  in  bond- 
acfc ;  to  regard  them  as  property ;  to  sell  them  to  whom  he 
pleases  ;  to  avail  himself  of  their  unrequited  labour  ;  to  make 
all  their  religious  privileges  and  rights  dependent  only  on 
his  will?  They  say  no  such  thing;  they  imply  no  such 
thing;  fairly  interpreted,  they  would  go  against  any  such 
claim. 

And  yet  it  is  on  such  passages  as  these  that  the  master 
must  ground  his  right  to  continue  to  hold  his  fellow-men  in 
bondage,  if  he  founds  that  right  on  the  precepts  addressed  to 
him  in  the  New  Testament ;  for  there  are  no  other.  It  is 
implied  in  the  argument  which  is  derived  from  these  passages, 
that  they  sanction  the  whole  system  of  domestic  slavery,  and 
grant  a  universal  permission  to  establish  and  maintain  it  at  all 
times,  and  in  all  lands,  and  are  proof  that  it  was  the  intention 
of  the  Author  of  the  Christian  religion  that  the  system  should 
be  perpetuated.  They  are  supposed  to  sanction  the  right  of 
one  man,  who  has  the  power,  to  compel  a  human  being,  a 
fellow-creature,  a  man  redeemed  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and 
an  heir  of  salvation,  to  labour  for  him,  without  his  own  con- 
sent, and  to  be  subject  wholly  to  his  will.  They  are  supposed 
to  sanction  all  the  claim  which  is  set  up  by  the  master  over 
such  a  man — the  right  to  withhold  from  him  the  Bible;  to 
forbid  his  marrying  the  object  of  his  affections ;  to  regulate 
his  food  and  clothing  and  mode  of  living ;  to  control  his  chil- 
dren ;  and  to  give  him  a  right,  when  he  pleases,  to  sunder 
his  connection  with  his  wife  and  children  for  ever,  and  to  sell 
him,  or  her,  or  them,  to  any  one  whom  he  pleases.  They 
are  supposed  to  sanction  the  right  to  all  that  such  a  man  can 
earn,  and  all  by  which  he  can  in  any  way  contribute  to  the 
wealth,  the  ease,  or  the  luxurious  indiilgence  of  the  injister. 
Every  thing  that  enters  essentially  into  the  system  of  slavery  ; 
all  the  claims  which  a  master  asserts  over  his  slaves  ;  all  the 


310  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

laws  which  go  to  uphold  the  system, — all  these  are  supposed  to 
be  sanctioned  by  these  two  injunctions. 

Well  may  we  ask,  in  the  words  of  Dr.  Wayland,  (pp.  83, 
84,)  whether  there  was  "  ever  such  a  moral  superstructure 
raised  on  such  a  foundation  ?  The  doctrine  of  purgatory,  from 
a  verse  of  Maccabees ;  the  doctrine  of  the  papacy,  from  the 
saying  of  Christ  to  Peter ;  the  establishment  of  the  Inquisi- 
tion, from  the  obligation  to  extend  the  knowledge  of  religious 
truth, — all  these  seem  as  nothing  to  it.  If  the  rehgion  of  Christ 
allows  such  a  license  from  such  precepts  as  these,  the  New- 
Testament  would  be  the  greatest  curse  that  ever  was  inflicted 
on  our  race." 

(b)  But  in  order  to  see  the  exact  bearing  of  these  precepts, 
and  to  understand  whether  they  could  properly  be  regarded 
by  a  Christian  master  as  sanctioning  his  claim  over  a  human 
being,  they  should  be  considered  in  connection  with  other 
things,  in  which  he  would  feel  himself  to  be  concerned,  and 
certain  representations  made  in  the  New  Testament  which 
he  could  not  but  regard  as  having  an  important  bearing  on 
him,  and  on  the  question  of  his  duty  to  his  slaves.  The  object 
now  is  to  obtain  a  just  view  of  the  attitude  in  which  a  master 
would  be  placed,  with  all  the  statements  of  the  New  T^esta- 
ment  before  his  mind  that  could  be  considered  to  relate  to  his 
duty  to  his  slaves.  What  would  he  do,  or  how  would  he 
esteem  this  system,  under  the  influence  of  all  the  doctrines 
and  precepts  laid  down  in  the  New  Testament  that  could  be 
regarded  as  applicable  to  him  in  this  relation  ?  To  see  this, 
let  the  following  things  be  borne  in  mind : 

(1.)  The  right  of  the  master  to  the  slave,  as  already  ob- 
served, is  never  once  recognised,  either  in  so  many  words,  or 
in  any  expressions  which  fairly  imply  it.  It  is  not  found  in 
any  statement  of  his  right  in  general,  or  in  detail.  It  i*  never 
said  that  he  is  the  lawful  owner  of  the  slave,  or  that  the  rela- 
tion is  good  and  desirable,  or  that  it  is  contemplated  by  Chris- 
tianity that  it  should  be  continued ;  nor  is  it  anywhere  said 
that  he  has  the  right  to  avail  himself  of  the  labour  of  the  slave. 


SCRIPTURAL    yiTAVS    OF    SLAVERY.  311 

or  to  interfere  with  his  relations  to  his  wife  or  children,  or  to 
prescribe  the  time  or  the  mode  in  which  he  shall  worship  God. 
There  is  not  one  thins^  which  enters  essentially  into  the 
nature  of  slaver}',  for  which  an  explicit  precept  of  the  New 
Testament  can  be  pleaded.  It  is  not  said  that  he  has  a  right 
to  enforce  obedience,  or  even  to  require  it  of  his  slaves.  It 
is  indeed  enjoined  on  servants  that  they  be  obedient  to  their 
masters,  as  it  was  on  subjects  to  be  obedient  to  the  laws  of 
Nero ;  but  there  is  no  authority  ^ven  to  masters  to  require  or 
enforce  such  obedience,  any  more  than  there  is  to  Nero,  or 
any  other  bloody  tyrant.  What  was  the  duty  of  the  servant 
in  the  premises,  and  what  were  the  obligations  of  the  master, 
are  ditTerent  questions,  and  the  one  throws  no  light  on  the 
other.  When  a  man  strikes  me,  it  is  my  duty  to  receive  the 
blow  with  a  proper  spirit ;  but  this  furnishes  no  sanction  for 
his  conduct. 

Now  this  undeniable  fact,  that  the  right  of  the  master  over 
the  person  and  the  services  of  the  slave  is  never  recognised 
at  all  in  the  New  Testament,  is  a  most  important  fact,  and  in 
tlie  circumstances  of  the  case  could  not  but  have  an  important 
bearing  on  the  whole  subject  in  the  view  of  the  early  Chris- 
tians. How  could  it  be  that  he  would  not  be  led  to  ask  the 
question,  as  already  remarked,  whether  the  apostles  regarded 
it  as  right  I  If  an  owner  of  slaves  in  the  United  States  were 
now  to  appeal  to  the  New  Testament  to  justify  what  is  actu- 
ally done,  to  what  part  of  the  New  Testament  would  he  look  ^ 
AVhere  would  he  find  a  distinct  precept,  giving  him  a  right 
to  buy  a  fellow  being?  Or  to  hold  him  as  property  ?  Or  to  sell 
him  t  Or  to  separate  him  from  his  wife  and  children  ?  Or  to 
withhold  from  him  the  Bible  ?  Or  to  feed  him  on  coarse  fare, 
and  to  clothe  him  in  coarse  raiment,  in  order  that  he  himself 
and  his  family  might  be  supported  in  indolency  and  luxury  ? 
For  not  one  of  these  things  will  he  find  a  direct  precept  or 
permission  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  yet  all  of  them  are 
things  which  are  unlawful  without  such  a  precept  or  per- 
mission. 


312  AN   INQUIRY   INTO   THE 

(2.)  The  New  Testament  lays  down  the  doctrine,  in  terms  so 
plain  that  a  holder  of  slaves  could  not  be  ignorant  of  it,  that 
all  men  are  by  nature  equal  in  regard  to  their  rights ;  that 
there  is  no  distinction  of  blood,  or  caste,  or  complexion  that 
can  justify  such  an  institution  as  that  of  slavery.  It  is  one 
of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity — a  doctrine  on 
which  the  whole  system  is  based,  and  which  sends  its  influence 
into  every  portion  of  the  system — that  God  "  hath  made  of 
one  blood  all  nations  of  men  for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of 
the  earth."  Acts  xviii.  26.  They  are  descended  from  the 
same  earthly  ancestors,  and  are  children  alike  of  the  same 
heavenly  Parent.  Whatever  distinction  of  complexion  there 
may  be,  it  is  a  doctrine  of  the  Bible  that  all  belong  to  one 
and  the  same  great' family,  and  that  in  the  most  important 
matters  pertaining  to  their  existence  they  are  on  a  level.  By 
nature,  one  is  no  more  the  favourite  of  Heaven  than  another ; 
one  has  no  rights  over  another.  Now,  this  doctrine,  which 
lies  everywhere  on  the  face  of  the  Bible,  could  not  but  be  seen 
by  a  conscientious  Christian  master  in  the  times  of  the  apos- 
tles, to  strike  at  one  of  the  fundamental  conceptions  on  which 
slavery  is  based — the  essential  superiority  of  one  class  of  men 
over  another.  It  was  on  this  ground  professedly  that  Aristotle 
advocated  slavery;*  and  if  it  were  not  for  this  conception, 
slavery  could  not  long  exist  at  all.  I  need  not  say  that  ex- 
tensively at  the  South  now  in  our  own  country,  it  is  maintamed 
that  the  negro  belongs  to  a  race  essentially  inferior  to  the  white 
man,  and  that  by  his  physical  incapacity  it  may  be  demon- 
strated that  he  was  designed  by  his  Creator  to  be  in  a  condition 
of  servitude  ;  nor  need  I  say  that  this  idea  of  essential  inferior- 
ity contributes  much,  even  among  good  men,  though  often  un- 
consciously to  themselves,  to  perpetuate  the  system.  All  over 
the  world  it  would  probably  be  found  that  one  of  the  essential 
things  on  which  the  institution  of  servitude  rests,  is  this  sup- 
position of  the  natural  inferiority  of  one  class  to  another,  and 

*  See  Biblical  Repository,  as  above. 


SCRIPTUKAL    \1EWS    OF    SLAVERY.  313 

the  moment  when  that  shall  be  made  to  disappear,  and  llie  con- 
ception sliall  fully  enter  tiie  mind,  that,  whatever  dilference  of 
complexion  or  physical  characteristics  of  any  kind  there  may 
be,  there  is  essential  equality  ;  that  all  are  the  children  of 
God  alike  ;  that  the  same  blood  flows  in  all  human  veins ; 
that  every  human  being  is  a  brother — that  moment  a  death- 
blow will  be  given  to  slavery,  from  which  it  will  never 
recover.  I  need  not  say  thai  whatever  support  the  system 
was  supposed  to  derive  among  the  ancients  from  the  inequa- 
lity of  men,  or  the  inferiority  of  one  class  to  another,  or  what- 
ever it  may  be  supposed  to  derive  from  the  same  consider- 
ation now,  this  receives  no  countenance  from  the  New 
Testament.  It  would  be  impossible  for  a  Christian  master  to 
derive  the  least  sanction  to  his  claim  to  the  service  o[  others, 
from  any  intimation  of  the  kind  in  that  book. 

(3.)  The  New  Testament  lays  down  the  doctrine  that  all 
are  alike  in  a  more  important  respect  than  in  the  equality  of 
natural  rights,  and  their  being  of  the  same  family.  All  are 
redeemed  by  the  same  blood,  and  are  heirs  of  the  same  glorious 
immortality.  The  same  great  sacrifice  has  been  made  for  the 
skive  which  has  been  made  for  his  master;  and  so  far  as  the 
purchase  made  by  redemption  affixes  any  stamp  of  value  on  the 
human  soul,  it  proclaims  that  the  soul  of  the  slave  is  worth  as 
much  as  that  of  the  master.  In  every  respect  as  a  redeemed 
sinner ;  as  an  heir  of  heaven  ;  as  a  child  of  God,  the  slave  is 
on  a  level  with  his  master.  lie  has  the  same  right  to  wor- 
ship G(xl ;  to  partake  of  the  ordinances  of  religion  ;  to  pray  ; 
to  read  the  Bible.  In  the  highest  of  all  senses  they  are 
brethren — ransomed  in  the  same  way,  and  destined,  if  they 
are  Christians,  to  live  in  the  same  heaven.  It  is  unnecessary 
to  attempt  to  prove  this  from  the  New  Testament,  for  it  lies 
on  the  face  of  the  volume,  and  no  one  can  call  it  in  question. 

Yet  it  is  impossible  not  to  see  what  would  be  the  bearing 
of  this  truth  on  the  mind  of  a  Christian  master,  and  on  the 
whole  question  of  slavery.  In  spite  of  all  reasoning  to  the 
contrary,  the  feeling  must  cross  the  mind  of  such  a  master 


314  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

that  he  has  no  right  to  hold  a  Christian  brother  in  bondage ; 
to  regard  him  as  property  ;  to  sell  him  to  others  ;  to  break  up 
his  domestic  relations  ;  to  interfere  with  any  of  his  rights  as  a 
husband,  a  father,  a  son,  or  a  Christian.  The  feeling  will 
cross  the  mind  that,  as  a  redeemed  man,  he  has  the  same  rights 
as  any  other  redeemed  man  ;  that  as  Christ  died  for  him,  he 
is  to  be  treated  in  every  way  as  an  heir  of  life ;  that  as  all 
hope  for  the  same  heaven,  no  one  has  a  right  to  rivet  the 
fetters  of  bondage  on  another.  A  Christian  master,  in  order 
to  his  having  perfect  peace  in  asserting  his  claims  over  a 
redeemed  man  as  a  slave,  7nuiit  feel  that  there  ought  to  be 
some  explicit  warrant  for  this  in  the  New  Testament ;  and 
if  there  is  any  thing  for  which  such  a  plain,  unequivocal 
warrant  should  be  adduced,  it  is- for  the  asserted  right  of  hold- 
ing a  Christian  brother, — a  fellow-heir  of  life — a  candidate  for 
heaven, — as  property  ;  the  right  to  sell  him  or  to  keep  him  ; 
to  alienate  him  by  contract  or  by  will ;  to  appropriate  all  the 
avails  of  his  labour  to  our  own  use;  to  regulate  exactly  his 
manner  of  living ;  to  separate  him  from  wife,  and  children,  and 
home ;  and  to  determine  the  times  and  seasons,  if  any,  whea 
he  may  worship  God.  And  when  we  ask  for  this  exphcit 
warrant,  this  unambiguous  authority  in  the  case,  we  are 
referred  to  two  texts  of  the  New  Testament,  enjoining  on 
masters  *to  do  the  same  things  to  them,  forbearing  threaten- 
ing, knowing  that  they  have  a  master  in  heaven ;'  and  '  to 
render  to  their  servants  that  which  is  just  and  equal.'  And 
this  is  all.  This  is  the  whole  authority  which  is  or  can  be 
adduced  for  reducing  one  for  whom  Christ  died  to  bondage, 
and  holding  a  Christian  brother  in  the  chains  of  perpetual 
servitude.  Veril}^  a  Christian  master  should  be  able  to  refer 
to  some  more  explicit  authority  than  this. 

(4.)  The  fair  influence  of  the  injunctions  on  this  subject  in 
the  New  Testament,  so  far  as  a  Christian  master  would  feel 
himself  addressed  in  them,  would  be  to  induce  him  to  eman- 
cipate his  slaves.  If  there  was  no  explicit  authority  given 
to  him  to  hold  thorn  in  bondage ;  if  they  were  considered  to 


SCRIPTURAL    Vir.WS    OF    SLAVKUY.  315 

be  in  all  respects  by  nature  on  an  equality  with  liimself, 
and  as  having  the  same  rights  as  he ;  if  they  were  re- 
pmled  as  Christian  brethren,  redeemed  by  the  same  blood, 
and  heirs  of  the  same  eternal  life,  the  effect  on  the  mind  of  a 
conscientious  man  would  be  inevitable.  However  he  might 
have  felt  before  he  was  made  acquainted  with  the  Chris- 
tian system,  when  these  great  doctrines  of  the  cross  were 
revealed  to  him,  and  he  had  embraced  them,  he  could  not  but 
have  felt  their  silent  influence  on  the  mind,  leading  him  to 
the  conclusion  that  Christianity  designed  that  all  should  be 
free.  The  influence  of  these  doctrines  may  be  illustrated  by 
a  supposed  case.  At  a  time  when  it  was  the  law  of  nations 
that  all  prisonei-s  of  war  should  be  regarded  as  slaves,  we  may 
conceive  of  a  man  who  had  early  left  his  home  and  country, 
and  gone  to  a  distant  land.  While  there,  among  the  captives 
which  might  be  exposed  to  sale,  might  be  a  bright  and  beau- 
tiful female  child.  Impressed  with  the  common  sentiments 
respecting  the  rights  over  the  captives  taken  in  war,  he  may 
have  purchased  her  without  scruple,  when  exposed  to  sale,  as 
his  slave.  What  now  would  be  his  emotions,  and  what  his 
views  about  the  propriety  of  retaining  her  in  bondage,  if  he 
should  learn  that  she  was  his  own  sister ;  bom  after  he  had 
left  his  home;  the  daughter  of  his  own  beloved  mother? 
Would  he  suppose  that  he  had  a  right  to  retain  her  as 
a  slave ;  to  hold  her  as  property ;  to  sell  her  to  whom  he 
pleased  ?  Much  like  this  was  the  efl^ect  which  Christianity 
was  fitted  to  produce  on  the  feelings  and  views  of  men 
in  regard  to  slavery.  Up  to  the  time  when  its  truths  were 
made  known,  the  great  mass  of  mankind  had  no  scruples 
about  its  propriety.  They  regarded  one  portion  of  the  race 
as  inferior  to  the  other,  and  as  born  to  be  slaves.  Christianity 
disclosed  the  great  truth  that  all  were  on  a  level ;  that  all  were 
equal ;  that  all  were  brethren.  When  this  truth  dawned  on 
the  soul,  what  must  have  been  its  eflict  on  those  who  held 
their  fellow-men  in  bondage?  That  eflect  must  have  been 
not  a  little  hke  that  in  the  supposed  case  of  the  man  who  had 


316  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

unwittingly  purchased  his  own  sister,  and  now  held  her  as  a 
slave. 

If  we  look  more  closely  at  the  very  precepts  which  the 
apostles  gave  to  '  masters,'  and  on  which  reliance  is  placed  to 
justify  them  in  holding  their  fellow-men  in  bondage,  it  must 
be  apparent  that  this  efl'ect  would  follovA'  from  those  very  pre- 
cepts, even  if  there  were  no  other  on  the  subject  in  the 
New  Testament.  One  of  them  (Eph.  vi.  9)  enjoins  it  on 
masters  to  '  do  the  same  things  unto  them,  forbearing  threaten- 
ing, knowing  that  they  had  a  master  in  heaven,  and  that 
there  is  no  respect  of  persons  with  him.''  Would  the  effect 
of  this  precept  be  to  lead  him  to  infer  that  slavery  was  a  good 
thing,  and  was  to  be  perpetuated?  The  manifest  object  of 
the  apostle  in  this  passage  is,  to  secure  for  servants  a  proper 
treatment ;  to  require  the  master  to  evince  towards  them  the 
same  spirit  which  he  had  enjoined  on  servants ;  and  to  teach 
them  to  remember  that  they  had  a  master  in  heaven  who 
would  require  a  strict  account ;  for  '  there  was  no  respect  of 
persons  icith  him.''  But  this  great  and  central  truth  of  the 
Christian  religion,  that  '  there  is  no  respect  of  persons  with 
God,'  is  one  which  is  by  no  means  favourable  to  the  per- 
petuity of  slavery.  A  man  who  should  have  this  constantly 
before  his  mind,  and  allow  it  to  have  its  full  influence  on  his 
heart,  would  not  be  long  the  owner  of  a  slave.  The  direct 
tendency  of  it  is  to  show  him  that  his  slave,  in  the  sight  of 
God,  is  equal  to  himself,  and  that  before  his  high  and  impartial 
tribunal  the  rights  of  the  slave  would  be  regarded  as  much 
as  those  of  the  master.  The  other  passage  is  still  more  de- 
cisive: "  Masters,  render  unto  your  servants  tJmt  tuhich  is 
just  and  equal;  knoAving  that  ye  also  have  a  master  in 
heaven."  Col.  iv.  1.  What  would  be  the  fair  effect  of  this 
on  the  mind  of  a  conscientious  Christian  master?  What 
would  be  'just  and  equal'  to  a  man  in  these  circumstances? 
Would  it  not  be  [a)  to  compensate  him  fairly  for  his  labour ; 
to  furnish  him  an  adequate  remuneration  for  what  he  had 
earned  ?     But  this  would  strike  a  blow  at  the  root  of  slavery, 


SCRirTLIlAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVERY.  317 

for  one  of  the  elementary  principles  of  the  system  is,  that 
there  must  be  *  unrequited  labour;'  that  is,  the  slave  must 
earn  as  tnuch  more  than  he  receives^  as  will  do  his  part  in 
funinfaining  his  master  and  his  family  in  idleness.  If  he 
and  they  were  disposed  to  earn  their  own  livinc:,  they  would 
not  need  the  labour  of  slaves,  [b)  If  a  man  should  in  fact 
render  to  his  slaves  '  that  which  is  just  and  ecjual,'  would  ho 
not  restore  them  to  freedom  ?  Would  any  thing  short  of  this 
be  all  that  is  just  and  equal  ?  In  the  case  of  our  own  sons, 
if  they  were  reduced  to  slavery,  could  we  feel  that  any  thing 
short  of  restoration  to  freedom  would  meet  the  claims  of  jus- 
lice  ?  Have  not  slaves  in  every  instance  been  deprived  of  their 
liberty  by  injustice  P  Are  they  not  retained  in  their  condition 
by  a  practical  denial  of  their  efjuaii/y  with  other  men  ?  Is  it 
not  now  both  unjust,  and  a  denial  of  their  equality  with  others, 
to  continue  that  relation  any  longer  ?  And  would  not  Justice 
to  them  restore  them  to  freedom  ?  What  has  the  slave  done 
to  forfeit  his  right  to  liberty  ?  What  has  he  or  his  forefathers 
done  to  make  it  'just'  that  it  should  be  contemplated  that  he 
and  his  posterity  should  be  held  in  bondage /or  ever?  And  is 
he  not  now  retained  in  his  present  condition,  every  day  and 
hour,  by  withholding  that  which  is  'equal?'  Has  he  now 
♦equal'  rights,  and  'equal'  privileges  with  other  men?  Has 
he  not  been  cut  off"  from  them  by  denying  him  the  equality 
to  which  he  is  entitled  in  the  arrangements  of  Grod's  govern- 
ment ?  Can  he  be  held  at  all  without  violating  all  the  just 
notions  of  equality?  This  passage,  therefore,  contains  a 
principle  which  would  'lay  the  axe  at  the  root'  of  slavery 
everywhere. 

Now,  suppose  a  man  to  be  fairly  under  the  influence  of 
these  undoubted  principles  of  Christianity.  Let  him  be  im- 
bued with  the  conviction  that  God  has  made  of  one  blood  all 
the  human  race;  that  all  are  by  nature  equal  before  him; 
that  all  have  been  redeemed  by  the  same  great  sacrifice  on 
the  cross,  showing  no  respect  to  colour,  caste,  or  rank  ;  that 
all  true  Christians  are  brethren — belonging  to  the  same  family 


318  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

and  fellow-heirs  of  the  grace  of  life ;  and  that  it  is  a  duty  to 
render  to  all  that  which  is  just  and  equal ;  and  to  these  things 
let  him  add  the  golden  rule  of  the  Saviour,  and  what  sanction 
would  these  two  passages  (Eph.  vi.  9,  and  Col.  iv.  1)  really 
give  to  the  system  of  slavery  ?  What  would  be  the  fair 
influence  of  all  the  precepts  of  Christianity  which  the  master 
could  regard  as  appropriate  to  him,  and  bearing  on  his  duty  ? 
Would  it  be — could  it  be,  to  satisfy  his  conscience  that  the 
apostles  meant  to  teach  that  it  was  right  for  him  as  a  Chris- 
tian man  to  hold  his  brother — his  fellow  Christian — as  pro- 
perty;  and  to  regard  him  as,  in  any  sense,  a  *  chattel'  or  a 
*  thing  V  Could  he  feel  this — when  it  is  never  said,  and  Avhen 
it  is  never  even  implied?  No!  no  man  under  the  full  and 
fair  influence  of  these  principles  could  feel  thus. 

Tlie  case  of  Onesimus,  the  servant  of  Philemon. 

In  pursuing  the  inquiry  whether  the  precepts  addressed  to 
masters  furnish  a  sanction  for  slavery,  there  is  a  propriety  in 
examining,  with  a  somewhat  more  rigid  attention,  the  case  of 
Onesimus,  the  servant  of  Philemon.  This  is  especially  im- 
portant, from  the  reliance  which  is  reposed  on  that  case  by  the 
advocates  of  slavery.  The  epistle  to  Philemon  is  often  re- 
ferred to  by  them  as  full  proof  that  the  sanction  of  the  New 
Testament  is  given  to  slavery  ;  and,  indeed,  it  would  seem  to 
be  regarded  as  so  clear  on  the  point,  that  all  that  is  necessary 
is  to  name  this  epistle  as  settling  the  whole  matter  in  debate. 
The  points  whicli  it  is  supposed  to  prove  are  two : — firsty  that 
slavery  is  right,  since  it  is  assumed  that  Onesimus  was  a 
slave,  and  that  Paul,  in  writing  to  his  master  Philemon,  does 
not  intimate  that  the  relation  was  cqaitrary  to  the  spirit  of 
Christianity ;  and  second,  that  it  is  our  duty  to  restore  a  slave 
to  his  master,  if  he  runs  away — since  it  is  assumed  that  Paul 
did  this  in   the  case  of  Onesimus.*     This  argument  is  con- 

*  Comp.  Dr.  Fuller  on  Slavery,  in  bis  Letters  to  Dr.  Wayland,  pp.  194, 
195. 


SCRIPTURAL    VI i:\VS    OF    SLA\  KRY.  319 

stantly  referred  to  by  the  advocates  of  slavery  at  the  North  as 
well  as  at  the  South. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  this  view  of  the  matter  would  be 
sustained  by  most  of  the  commentaries  on  this  epistle  ;  but  it 
is  lime  to  inquire  whether  that  exposition  is  the  true  one,  and 
whether  this  epistle  gives  any  sanction  to  slavery  in  these 
respects.  Perhaps  a  not  less  imiiortant  inquiry  also  would 
he,  whether  the  common  interpretation  put  on  this  epistle,  as 
sustaining  slavery,  could  be  made  to  commend  itself  to  the 
innate  sense  of  mankind  as  what  a  revelation  would  teach  ; 
and  especially  whether  it  could  be  so  commended  to  slaves 
themselves  as  to  make  them  feel  that  a  book  which  taught 
the  doctrine  conmionly  supposed  to  be  taught  in  it,  could  be 
a  revelation  from  God.*     In  order  to  this,  it  is  important  to 


•  A  very  affectint?  illustration  of  the  use  which  is  oftt-n  made  of  this 
epistle  at  the  South  in  defence  of  slavery,  and  of  the  innate  conviction  of 
the  slaves  themselves  that  a  revelation  from  God  cannot  inculcate  the 
doctrine  that  is  derived  from  it,  and  of  the  distrust  and  suspicion  excited 
in  the  minds  of  slaves  against  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  when  they 
declare  that  this  epistle  dors  sanction  slavery,  is  found  in  the  Tenth  An- 
nual Report  of  the  "Association  for  the  Religious  Instruction  of  the  Ne- 
groes in  Lilierty  county,  Georgia."  In  that  report,  the  missionary,  the 
Rev.  C.C.Jones,  frankly  says: — "Allow  me  to  relate  a  fact  which  occurred 
in  the  spring  of  this  year,  illustrative  of  the  character  and  knowledge  of  the 
negroes  at  this  time.  I  was  prcacliing  to  a  large  congregation  on  the  Epis- 
tle to  Philemon;  and  when  I  insisted  upon  fidelity  and  obedience  as 
Christian  virtues  in  scrA'ants,  and,  uj>on  the  authority  of  Paul,  condemned 
the  practice  of  running  away,  one  half  of  my  audience  deliberately  rose 
up  and  walked  off  with  themselves,  and  those  that  remained  looked  any 
thing  but  satisfied,  either  with  the  preacher  or  his  doctrine.  After  dis- 
mission, there  was  no  small  stir  among  them :  some  solemnly  declared 
♦  that  there  was  no  such  epistle  in  the  Bible ;'  others,  '  that  it  was  not  the 
gospel;'  others,  'that  I  preached  to  please  masters;'  others,  'that  they 
did  not  care  if  they  ever  heard  me  preach  again.' " — pp.  24,  25.  This  is 
a  very  instructive  paiisage  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  Mr.  Jones  has  shown 
himself  by  liis  labours  to  be  a  sincere  friend  of  the  coloured  man,  and  to 
be  truly  desirous  of  hia  welfare,    and  hab  been  making  a  very  interesting 


320  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

know  exactly  what  was  the  state  of  the  case  in  relation  to 
these  points — for  in  interpreting  the  New  Testament  it  should 
not  be  assumed  that  any  part  of  it  is  in  favour  of  slavery,  any 
more  than  it  may  be  assumed  in  respect  to  poly^my,  pro- 
faneness,  adultery,  or  any  other  sin.  The  points  which  it  is 
necessary  to  make  out,  in  order  to  prove  that  the  epistle  of 
Philemon  may  be  urged  jn  favour  of  slavery,  are,  that  Onesi- 
mus  was  actually  a  slave  ;  that  Paul  returned  him  against  his 
will  to  his  former  master ;  that  he  sent  him  back  because  he 
supposed  he  had  done  wrong  by  escaping  from  servitude ; 
that  he  so  expressed  himself  in  the  letter  to  his  master  as  to 
show  that  he  was  not  unfriendly  to  the  system,  or  regarded  it 
as  not  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  the  Christian  religion  ; 
and  that  he  meant  that  Onesimus  should  continue  to  be  held 
as  a  slave,  after  his  return  to  Philemon.  Now,  in  regard  to 
these  points,  I  would  make  the  following  remarks : — 

experiment — which,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  must  ultimately  be  a 
failure — to  see  whether  true  religion  can  be  propagated  and  maintained 
among  a  people  by  mere  oral  instruction,  and  where  the  slave  is  forbidden 
by  law  to  have  free  access  to  the  oracles  of  God.  If  Mr.  Jones  had  been 
trained  under  different  influences,  and  had  adopted  a  different  method  of 
interpreting  this  epistle ;  if  he  had  been  able,  consistently  with  bis  views 
of  truth,  in  expounding  it  to  his  congregation  of  slaves,  to  have  said  that 
there  was  no  certain  evidence  that  Onesimus  was  a  slave  at  all ;  that  when 
Jie  was  away,  and  had  been  converted  to  Christianity,  he  may  have  felt 
that  he  had  wronged  Philemon,  and  on  many  accounts  wished  to  return 
to  him ;  that  there  is  no  proof  that  Paul  sent  him  back  against  his  will, 
or  even  advised  him  to  go,  but  that,  seeing  he  was  desirous  to  return,  he 
gave  him  a  kind  letter  to  Philemon,  to  induce  him  to  be  willing  to  receive 
him  again ;  and  that,  even  supposing  he  had  been  a  slave,  Paul  expressly 
directed  him  not  to  regard  and  treat  him  any  more  as  a  slave,  but  as  in  all 
respects  a  Christian  brother,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  his  audience  would 
have  all  retained  their  seats.  That  view  would  have  accorded  well  enough 
with  their  common  sense,  and  with  what  they  would  expect  to  find  in  a 
revelation  from  the  Father  of  all  mankind ;  it  is  no  wonder  that  thoy 
could  not  be  persuaded  that  the  other  view  was  any  part  of  a  revelation 
from  heaven. 


^JCRIPTrRAL    VIKWS    OK    SLAVKRY.  321 

(a.)  There  is  no  positive  or  certain  evidence  that  Onesi- 
mus  was  a  slave  at  all.  Even  if  it  should  be  admitted  to  be 
probable  that  he  was,  it  would  be  necessary,  in  order  that  the 
epistle  might  be  adduced  in  favour  of  slavery,  that  the  fact 
should  be  made  out  without  any  ground  of  doubt,  or  the  argu- 
ment is  worthless — for  the  only  conceivable  force  in  the  argu- 
ment is,  that  he  was  a  slave.  Just  so  far  as  there  is  any  doubt 
about  that,  so  far  is  the  argument  of  no  value,  h  is  clear 
that  the  epistle  can,  under  any  circumstances,  be  adduced  in 
favour  of  slavery  only  so  far  as  it  is  certain  that  Onesimus 
had  been  a  slave.  But  that  is  not  certain.  It  cannot  be  made 
to  be  certain,  and'it  should  not  be  taken  for  granted.  Either 
of  the  suppositions  that  he  was  bound  to  service  till  he  v\'as 
of  age  by  a  parent  or  guardian,  or  that  he  had  voluntarily 
obligated  himself  to  serve  for  wages,  if  true,  would  be  fatal  to 
the  argument  derived  from  this  epistle  in  favour  of  slavery  ; 
and  in  order  to  that  argument,  it  must  be  shown  by  fair  exe- 
gesis that  neither  of  these  suppositions  accord  with  what  is 
said  of  him  by  the  apostle. 

"What,  then,  is  the  evidence  that  Onesimus  was  a  slave  ? 
All  the  proof  that  there  can  be  on  that  point  must  be  derived 
from  ver.  16,  and  all  the  evidence  in  that  verse  is  in  the  fact 
that  he  is  there  called  "  a  servanf.'^^-SovXo^.  "  Not  now  as  a 
servant."  What  evidence  that  verse  affords  ihat,if  he  were 
a  slave,  Paul  did  not  mean  that  the  relation  should  be  conti- 
nued, will  be  considered  hereafter.  The  question  now  is, 
whether  the  mere  application  of  the  term  "  servant"  to  him — 
5ot>^$ — necessarily  proves  that  he  was  a  slave  ? 

From  the  remarks  which  I  have  before  made  on  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Greek  word  rendered  servant — hoi-Koq — it  is  evident, 
1  trust,  that  nothing  certain  can  be  determined,  from  the  mere 
use  of  this  word,  in  regard  to  the  condition  of  one  to  whom  it 
is  applied.  It  is  not  the  peculiar  and  distinctive  word  which 
in  the  Greek  language  denotes  a  slave — though  like  our  word 
servants  it  was  often,  perhaps  usually  applied  to  a  slave. 
Like  that  word,  it  is  of  a  general  character,  and  would  be  ap- 


322  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

plied  to  any  one  who  was  engaged  in  the  service  of  another, 
whether  bound  by  a  parent  or  guardian,  or  whether  he  en- 
gaged voluntarily  to  serve  another,  or  whether  he  was  pur- 
chased as  a  slave,  or  whether  he  was  a  serf  attached  to  the 
soil.  The  word  denotes  servant  of  any  kind,  and  it  should 
never  be  assumed  that  those  to  whom  it  was  applied  were 
slaves.  Unless  there  is  some  circumstance  stated  which  will 
enable  us*  to  determine  what  kind  of  a  servant  any  one  was, 
it  can  never  be  ascertained  by  the  mere  use  of  the  word.  In 
the  instance  before  us,  there  is  no  circum.stance  mentioned  by 
which  it  can  be  determined  whether  Onesimus  was  a  volun- 
tary or  involuntary  servant,  and  no  advocate  of  slavery  has  a 
right  to  assume  that  he  was  a  slave.  It  cannot  be  inferred, 
from  the  fact  that  he  had  run  away  from  his  master,  that  he 
was  a  slave,  for  indented  apprentices  often  do  this ;  and  those 
who  have  made  a  voluntary  contract  to  labour  for  others  do 
this,  and  by  doing  it  are  guilty  of'  all  the  wrong  here 
charged  on  Onesimus.  It  cannot  be  inferred,  from  the  fact 
that  Paul  sent  him  back  to  his  master,  that  he  was  a  slave,  for 
this  might  have  occurred  if  he  had  been  a  bound  servant,  an 
apprentice,  or  even  one  who  had  voluntarily  agreed  to  labour 
in  the  employment  of  Philemon ;  and,  as  we  shall  see,  there  is 
no  evidence  whatever  that  Paul  compelled  him  to  return 
against  his  wull.  ^^11  that  is  said  of  him  in  ver.  16  of  the 
epistle,  or  in  any  other  part  of  the  epistle,  would  be  met  by 
the  supposition  that  he  was  a  voluntary  servant^  and  that  he 
had  been  in  fact  intrusted  with  important  business  by  Phile- 
mon. No  man  has  a  right  to  assume  that  when  the  word 
hov-Ko^ — doulos — occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  it  means  a 
slave,  or  that  he  to  whom  it  was  applied  was  a  slave  ;  (comp. 
Mark  x.  44;  Luke  ii.  29,  xvii.  10;  Acts  ii.  18,  iv.  29,  xvi. 
17;  Rom.  i.  1,  vi.  16;  2  Cor.  iv.  5;  Rev.  i.  1,  ii.  20,  &c. 
&c. ;)  and  yet,  udthout  such  an  assumption,  it  is  impossible  to 
prove  that  Onesimus  sustained  this  relation. 

{b.)  There  is  not  the  least  evidence  that  Paul  used  any 
force,  or  even  persuasion,  to  induce  Onesimus  to  return  to 


SCRIPmiAL    MKWS    OF    SL.\\T.RY.  323 

Philemon.  It  cannot  be  inferred  from  the  epistle,  that  he 
even  advised  him  to  return.  All  that  even  looks  hke  evi- 
dence on  this  point  is  found  in  ver.  12  of  the  epistle  :  "Whom 
/  have  sent  a<xain :  thou  therefore  receive  him,  that  is,  mine 
own  bowels."  But  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case  make  it 
probable,  or  certainly  not  improbable,  that  this  was  at  his  own 
request,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  expression  which  will  not 
be  fully  met  by  such  a  supposition.  (1)  The  language  does 
not  necessarily  imply  that  he  cornprllcd  him  to  go,  or  even 
tirged  him  to  do  it.  It  is  just  such  as  would  have  been  used 
on  the  supposition,  either  that  he  requested  him  to  go  and 
convey  a  letter  to  Colosse,  or  that  Oncsimus  desired  to  go,  and 
that  Paul  sent  him,  agreeably  to  his  request.  Comp.  Phil.  ii. 
25,  "Yet  I  supposed  it  necessary'  to  send  to  you  Epaphro- 
ditus,  my  brother  and  companion  in  labour,"  &c. ;  Coloss.  iv. 
7,  "All  my  stale  shall  Tychicus  declare  unto  you,  who  is 
a  beloved  brother,  and  a  faithful  minister,  and  fellow-servant 
in  the  Lord  :  whom  /  have  sent  unto  you  for  the  same  pur- 
pose, that  he  might  know  your  estate,"  &c.  But  Epaphro- 
ditus  and  Tychicus  were  not  sent  against  their  will,  nor  is 
there  any  more  reason  to  think  that  Onesimus  was.  Comp., 
for  a  similar  use  of  the  Greek  word  rtf>rtw,  which  does  not 
differ  in  sense  from  the  word  here  used,  drtortf/tTtcj,  (/o  send 
vp,  to  send  back,)  so  far  as  the  point  before  us  is  concerned, 
Luke  vii.  6,  10,  19,  xx.  13 ;  Acts  x.  5,  xv.  22 ;  1  Cor.  iv. 
17  ;  2  Cor.  ix.  3;  Eph.  vi.  22;  Phil.  ii.  19,  23,  28.  The 
word  here  employed  by  the  apostle  is  of  such  general  import, 
that  on  the  supposition  that  Onesimus  had  a  desire  to  return, 
or  that  Paul  wished  him  to  bear  a  message  to  a  friend  there, 
or  to  do  any  other  service  for  him,  this  would  be  the  very 
word  which  would  be  employed.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
statement  which  forbids  us  to  suppose  that  Oncsimus  was 
disposed  to  return  to  Philemon,  and  that  Paul  sent  him  at  his 
own  request.  (2)  Paul  had  no  power  to  send  Onesimus  back 
to  his  master,  unless  he  chose  to  go.  He  had  no  civil  author- 
ity ;  he  had  no  guard  to  send  him  with ;  he  could  intrust 


324  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

him  to  no  sheriff  to  convey  him  from  place  to  place,  or  to  con- 
fine him  in  jail,  if  he  were  disposed  to  escape;  and  he  had 
no  means  of  controlling  him,  if  he  chose  to  go  to  any  other 
place  than  Colosse.  He  could,  indeed,  have  sent  him  away 
from  himself;  he  could  have  told  him  to  go  to  Colosse,  but 
there  his  power  ended.  Onesimus  then  could  have  gone 
where  he  pleased.  But  there  is  no  evidence  that  Paul  even 
told  him  to  go  to  Colosse  against  his  own  inchnation,  or  that 
he  would  have  sent  him  at  all,  if  he  had  not  requested  it. 
And  li  he  had,  what  probability  is  there  that  he  would  have 
been  so  pliant  and  passive  as  to  return  to  a  stale  of  slavery? 
How  many  runaway  slaves  are  there  now,  who  would  return 
to  their  masters  on  being  merely  told  to  do  so  ?  Who  ever 
saw  one  that  would  be  willing  to  do  it,  even  on  the  authority 
of  an  apostle  ? *  (3)  There  may  have  been  man}-  reasons  why 
Onesimus  desired  to  return  to  Coh  sse,  and  no  one  can  prove 
that  he  did  not  express  that  desire  to  Paul,  and  that  Paul  sent 
him  in  consequence  of  that  request.  He  may  have  had  rela- 
tives and  friends  there ;    or,  being  now  converted,  he  may 

*  An  instance,  illustrative  of  this,  occurred  once  in  my  own  experience. 
About  twelve  or  fourteen  years  since,  as  I  was  entering  the  gate  of  ray 
church,  to  go  into  my  study,  early  in  the  morning,  a  fine-looking  coloured 
man,  apparently  about  twenty-five  or  thirty  years  of  age,  met  me,  and  told 
me  that  he  was  a  runaway  slave,  from  Maryland,  and  wished  some  assist- 
ance. Influenced  by  feeUngs  which  commonly  prevailed  at  that  time,  and, 
as  I  then  thought,  in  accordance  with  the  Bible,  and  probably  having  this 
very  case  of  Onesimus  in  my  eye,  I  endeavoured  to  show  him  the  impro- 
priety of  his  leaving  his  master,  and  to  convince  him  that  he  ought  to 
return.  But  I  could  make  not  the  least  impression  on  his  mind,  and  all 
my  arguments  had  no  force  in  his  Aiew  whatever.  For  the  error  which  I 
committed  in  that  case,  I  have  for  years  felt  regret,  and  have  increasingly 
felt  that  I  was  bound  to  do  something  to  help  my  fellow-men  everywhere 
to  the  enjoyment  of  freedom,  in  every  proper  way ;  and  from  that  case,  I 
am  satisfied  that  it  would  be  no  easy  thing  to  persuade  a  man,  who  had 
escaped  from  bondage,  to  return  to  it,  even  on  apostolic  authority.  What 
slave  has  there  ever  been  in  the  world,  who  has  been  induced  to  return  by 
any  such  reasoning? 


SCRIPmi.VL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  325 

have  become  sensible  that  ho  had,  in  some  way,  wronired  his 
former  master,  and  thai  he  oultIu  to  return,  and  repair  the 
wrong: ;  or  he  may  have  been  poor,  and  a  stranger  in  Home, 
and  may  have  been  greatly  disappointed  in  what  he  expected 
to  find  there  when  he  left  Philemon,  and  may  have  wished  to 
return  to  the  comparative  comforts  of  his  former  condition.  It 
is  no  uncommon  thing  for  a  runaway  apprentice  to  be  disap- 
pointed in  the  expectations  which  he  cherished  when  he  left 
his  master,  and  to  feel  that  it  would  be  better  for  him  if  he 
could  again  return  to  his  former  home  and  employment.  It 
is  no  very  uncommon  thing  for  one  who  has  done  wrong  to 
another,  and  who  has  fled  away,  if  he  should  be  converted,  to 
desire  to  ri'iurn  and  repair  the  wrong.  And  since  any  one 
of  these,  or  of  many  other  supposable  causes,  may  have  in- 
duced Onesimus  to  desire  to  return  to  his  master,  it  should  not 
be  assumed  that  Paul  sent  him  against  his  will,  and  thence 
inferred  that  he  was  in  favour  of  sending  back  runaway  slaves 
against  their  will.  There  are  many  points  to  be  proved, 
which  cannot  be  proved,  in  order  to  make  that  a  legitimate 
conclusion.  (4)  It  may  be  added,  therefore,  that  this  passage 
should  not  be  referred  to,  to  prove  that  we  oup^ht  to  send  back 
runaway  slaves  to  their  former  masters  against  their  own 
consent  ;  or  to  vindicate  the  laws,  which  require  magistrates 
to  do  it ;  or  to  show  that  they  who  have  escaped  from  slavery 
should  be  arrested  and  forcibly  detained;  or  to  jiatify  any 
sort  of  influence  over  a  ritnuicay  slave,  to  induce  him  to  re- 
tum  to  his  former  master.  There  is  not  the  least  evidence 
that  any  of  these  things  occurred  in  the  case  before  us,  and 
if  this  instance  is  ever  referred  to,  it  should  be  to  justify  what 
Paul  did — AND  NOTHING  ELSE.  The  passage  shows  that  it 
is  right  to  aid  a  servant  of  any  kind  to  return  to  his  master, 
if  he  desires  it;  and  that  it  is  right  to  give  him  a  "letter," 
and  to  plead  earnestly  for  his  favourable  reception,  if  he  has 
in  any  way  wronged  his  master — for  Paul  did  this.  On  the 
same  princij)le,  it  would  be  right  to  give  him  pecuniary  assist- 
ance, to  enable  him  to  return — for  tiiere  may  be  cases  where 

2-^ 


326  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

one  who  has  fled  from  servitude  would  wish  to  return.  There 
may  be  instances  where  one  has  had  a  kind  master,  with 
whom  he  would  feel,  that,  on  the  whole,  he  could  be  more 
happy  than  in  his  present  circumstances.  Or  there  may  be 
instances  where  one  may  have  relatives  that  are  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood, or  in  the  family  of  his  former  master,  and  the 
desire  to  be  with  them  may  be  so  strong,  that  he  would 
prefer  to  be  a  servant,  as  he  was  before,  rather  than  remain 
as  he  is  now.  In  all  such  cases,  it  is  right  to  render  aid — for 
the  example  of  the  apostle  Paul  goes  to  sustain  this ;  but  it 
goes  no  further.  Nothing  more  can  be  proved;  nothing  more 
is  necessary  to  be  believed,  in  order  to  a  fair  interpretation  of 
the  epistle. 

(c.)  There  is  no  evidence  that  Paul  meant  that  Onesimus 
should  return  as  a  slave,  or  with  a  view  to  his  being  retained 
and  treated  as  a  slave.  Even  supposing  he  had  been  so 
formerly,  there  is  not  the  sligrhtest  intimation  in  the  epistle 
that  when  he  sent  him  back  to  his  master,  he  meant  that  he 
should  throw  himself  into  the  chains  of  bondage  again.  No 
man  can  take  this  epistle  and  prove  from  it  that  Paul  would 
have  sent  him  at  all,  if  he  had  supposed  that  the  effect  would 
be  that  he  would  be  reduced  to  slavery  again.  If  such  had 
been  his  expectation,  the  expression  of  such  a  desire  would 
have  found  a  place  in  the  epistle ;  at  least,  the  epistle  would 
not  have  been  so  framed  as  almost  of  necessity  to  lead  to  a 
different  result. 

{d.)  There  is  very  satisfactory  evidence,  besides  this,  that 
Paul  did  not  mean  that  Onesimus  should  be  regarded  and 
treated  as  a  slave.  This  evidence  is  found  in  ver.  16,  of  the 
epistle  :  "  Not  now  as  a  servant,  but  above  a  servant,  a  brother 
beloved,  specially  to  me,  but  how  much  more  unto  thee,  both 
in  the  flesh,  and  in  the  Lord."  It  would  be  impossible  for 
Philemon  to  comply  with  the  wish  expressed  here,  and  yet 
retain  Onesimus  as  a  slave,  and  regard  him  as  property;  as 
a  'chattel ;'  as  a  '  thing.'  For  (I)  if  he  had  been  formerly  a 
slave;  if  this  is  the  fair  meaning  of  the  word  hov'Koi,  {doulos^) 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAYKRY.  327 

then  this  is  expressly  declared, — "  Xot  now  as  a  servniify 
((Hxfri  ^  Joi'xov.)  If  he  had  been  a  slave  before,  he  did  not 
triKh  that  he  should  be  received  as  such  now,  or  re^rded  as 
such  any  longer.  The  adverb  rendered  '  not  now,'  (ovxin,) 
means,  no  more,  no  farther,  no  longer.  It  implies  that  in 
regard  to  the  condition  in  which  he  had  been  before,  he  was 
not  to  be  so  any  more.  He  was  to  be  received  and  treated  as 
sustaining  another  kind  of  relation  hereafter,  that  of  a  Christian 
brother.  Conip.  Matt.  xix.  6,  "They  are  no  more  twain  ;" — 
the  some  Greek  word.  They  were  once  so,  but  they  are  not 
to  be  regarded  as  such  now.  Matt.  xxii.  4() :  "Neither  durst 
any  man  from  that  day  forth,  ask  him  any  more  questions," 
(f?ifpur)7(j(u  ovroi'  oi-xiti.)  They  once  did  it,  but  now  they  did 
not  dare  to  do  it.  Luke  xv.  19  :  "  Am  no  more  worthy  to  be 
called  thy  son;" — though  I  once  was.  John  vi.  06:  "And 
^valked  no  more  with  him;" — though  they  once  did.  See 
ako  John  xi.  54,  xiv.  10,  xvii.  11  ;  Acts  viii.  39;  Gal.  iv.  7  ; 
Eph.  ii.  19.  How  could  Philemon  comply  with  this  wish  of 
the  apostle,  on  the  supposition  that  Onesimus  had  been  before 
a  slave,  and  yet  regard  him  still  as  such  ?  The  very  attempt 
to  do  it  would  be  directlj''  in  the  face  of  the  desire  expressed 
by  the  apostle,  and  every  moment  he  held  him  as  such  he 
would  be  disregarding  his  wishes.  Suppose  that  Paul,  after 
a  short  interval,  had  actually  gone  to  the  residence  of  Phile- 
mon, as  he  expected  to,  (ver.  22,)  and  had  found  him  regard- 
ing and  treaiinir  Onesimus  as  a  slave;  would  he  have  felt 
that  he  had  complied  with  his  wishes  ?  Did  he  ask  this  of 
him  ?  Did  he  not  ask  just  the  reverse — that  he  would  not  do 
it  any  more  ?  Would  it  not  be  natural  for  him  to  say  that  he 
had  not  received  him  as  he  wished  him  to  do  ?  And  how 
could  Philemon  have  replied  to  this  ?  (2)  He  desired  him  to 
receive  and  treat  him,  in  all  respects,  as  a  Christian  brother; 
as  one  redeemed  ;  as  a  man  :  "  Not  now  as  a  servant,  but 
above  a  servant,  a  brother  beloved  ;''"'  that  is,  as  a  Christian 
brother.  See  \  Tim.  vi.  2,  where  this  same  phrase  is  applied 
to  Christian  masters,  and  where  it  is  claimed  justly,  as  has 


328  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

been  already  noticed,  by  the  advocates  of  slaver}',  that  it 
proves  that  those  to  whom  it  was  applied  were  real  Christians  : 
*'Let  them  not  despise  them,  because  they  are  brethren;  but 
rather  do  them  service,  because  they  are  faithful  and 
beloved.''''  The  phrase  implies  that  he  was  a  Christian,  and 
was  entitled  to  be  treated,  in  all  respects,  as  a  Christian 
brother,  and  in  no  respect  as  a  servant.  But  how  could  he 
do  this,  and  yet  regard  and  treat  him  as  a  slave  ?  Is  it  treat- 
ing- one  in  all  respects  as  a  Christian  brother,  to  deprive  him 
of  freedom  ;  to  consider  him  as  an  article  of  merchandise  ;  to 
exact  his  labour  without  compensation  ?  Would  the  man 
himself  who  makes  another  a  slave,  suppose  that  he  was 
treated  as  a  Christian  brother,  if  he  were  reduced  to  that  con- 
dition ?  Would  he  feel  that  his  son  was  so  regarded,  if  he  was 
made  a  slave  1  There  are  no  ways  of  reconciling-  these  things. 
It  is  impossible  for  a  man  to  regard  his  slave  as,  in  the  full 
and  proper  sense  of  the  phrase,  *a  Christian' brother:'*  He 
may,  indeed,  esteem  him  highly  as  a  Christian  ;  he  may  treat 
him  with  kindness  ;  he  may  show  him  many  favours ;  but — 
he  regards  him  also  as  his  slave  ;  and  this  makes  a  dif- 
ference wide  as  "  from  the  centre  thrice  to  the  utmost  pole" 
in  his  feelings  towards  him  and  other  Christians.  He  is  not 
on  a  level  with  himself  as  a  Christian.  He  has  not  the  same 
rights  in  his  own  family,  and  in  regard  to  his  time,  and  to  the 
avails  of  his  labour,  and  to  the  privilege  of  reading  the  Bible, 
which  the  master  supposes  the  Christian  religion  to  guarantee 
to  himself:  and  in  relation  to  these  things  he  could  not  but 
feel  that  he  was  deprived  of  the  rights  which  religion  confers, 
if  he  were  placed  in  the  same  condition  in  which  his  slave  is. 
The  idea  of  his  being  his  slave  mingles  with  all  the  feelings 
of  the  master  towards  him,  and  gives  a  colouring  to  all  his 
views  of  him.  He  cannot  but  feel,  if  he  is  under  the  influence 
of  religion,  that  that  slave,  if  he  were  treated  in  all  respects 
as  a  Christian,  would  be  as  free  as  himself;  would  have  the 
same  right  to  his  time,  and  skill,  and  liberty  ;  would  be  per- 
mitted to  form  his  own  plans,  and  to  enjoy  the  avails  of  his 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  329 

own  labour;  and  woukl  bo  as  secure  from  the  possibility  of 
being  sold. 

If  it  should  bo  objected  here,  that  when  the  apostle  (ver.  IG) 
requests  Philemon  to  receive  Onesimus  '*  not  as  a  servant,  but 
above  a  servant,  a  brother  beloved,"  he  adds  "  specially  to  me, 
but  how  much  more  unto  thee,  both  in  the  Jlesh,  and  in  the 
Lord,"  and  that  this  phrase  '  in  thcjlcsh'  proves  that  he  had 
been  a  slave,  and  that  he  meant  that  he  should  still  be  so  con- 
sidered, though  at  the  same  time  he  was  to  be  regarded  as  a 
Christian  brother;  1  would  rej)ly,  that  the  phrase  'in  the 
flesh' may  be  properly  used  in  reference  to  any  relation  which 
may  exist  pertaining  to  this  present  world,  as  contradistin- 
guished from  that  which  is  formed  primarily  by  religion,  and 
which  would  be  expressed  by  the  phrase  'in  the  Lord.'  This 
latter  phrase  denotes  relations  formed  by  religion,  or  in  which 
religion  lies  at  the  basis.  (Comp.  1  Cor.  vii.  39,  ix.  1  ;  Rom. 
xvi.  2, '-«;  Eph.  vi.  21  ;  Phil.  i.  14;  1  Thess.  v.  12,  et  al.) 
The  other  expression,  '  in  the  flesh,'  denotes  any  relation  per- 
taining to  the  present  life,  or  founded  on  any  thing  else  but 
religion.  See  1  Cor.  vii.  28,  x.  18;  Rom.  ix.  8,  xi.  14; 
Gal.  iv.  2^3.  It  might,  in  itself,  refer  to  any  natural  relation 
of  blood,  or  to  any  formed  in  business,  or  constituted  by  mere 
friendship,  or  by  family  alliance,  or  to  any  relation  having  its 
origin  either  in  voluntary  or  involuntary  servitude.  It  will 
not  do  to  assume  that  it  refers  to  any  one  of  these,  without 
more  evidence  than  is  conveyed  in  the  mere  expression  ;  and 
from  the  mere  use  of  the  phrase,  it  will  not  do  to  infer  that  he 
to  whom  it  is  applied  was  a  slave.  It  is  not  necessary  to  sup- 
pose, in  order  to  meet  the  full  force  of  the  expression,  either 
that  Onesimus  had  been  a  slave,  or  that  he  would  be  continued 
to  be  regarded  as  such.  Any  relation  of  the  kind  referred  to 
above  which  may  have  existed  before  between  him  and  Phi- 
lemon, or  which  might  be  afterwards  formed,  would  be  appro- 
priately denoted  by  tliis  plirase.  The  new  and  more  interest- 
ing relation,  which  they  were  now  to  sustain  to  each  other, 
which  was  formed  by  religion,  is  expressed  by  the  phrase 

28* 


330  AN    INQUIRY   INTO    THE 

*  in  the  Lord.'  In  both  these,  Paul  hoped  that  Onesi'mus 
would  manifest  the  appropriate  spirit  of  a  Christian,  and  be 
worthy  of  his  entire  confidence.  It  may  be  added  also,  that 
there  are  many  relations  of  a  voluntary  kind  subsisting 
between  one  man  and  another,  involving  the  obligation  even 
to  render  service,  which  are  entirely  consistent  with  the  feel- 
ing that  he  who  renders  it  is  in  all  respects  a  Christian 
brother ;  but  none,  except  the  natural  relations  of  kindred,  of 
an  involuntary  kind.  A  labourer  on  a  farm;  a  journeyman 
mechanic  ;  a  scrivener  employed  to  do  a  piece  of  writing  ;  a 
book-keeper  or  a  salesman  in  a  store;  a  lawyer  'retained'  to 
manage  a  cause  ;  a  minister  of  the  gospel  employed  as  a 
pastor — engaged  all  of  them  in  a  voluntary  service ;  and  a  son 
from  his  natural  relations  bound  to  labour  for  his  father  to  a 
certain  period  of  life — each  of  these  may  be  regarded  in  all 
respects  as  a  Christian  brother ; — a  slave  never. 

(e.)  The  principles  laid  down  in  this  epistle  to  Philemon, 
therefore,  would  lead  to  the  universal  abolition  of  slavery.  If 
all  those  who  are  now  slaves  were  to  become  Christians,  and 
their  masters  were  to  treat  them  *  not  as  slaves,  but  as  brethren 
beloved,'  the  period  would  not  be  far  distant  when  slavery 
would  cease.  This  would  probably  be  admitted  by  all.  But 
if  this  is  conceded,  then  all  is  conceded  that  my  argument 
requires.  It  would  follow  from  that,  that  slavery  is  not  a 
thing  which  it  is  desirable  to  perpetuate — is  not  a  thing 
which  Christianity  tends  to  perpetuate — and  is  therefore  evil 
and  sinful.  For,  a  state  of  things  which  would  be  destroyed 
by  Christianity  is  not  right  at  any  time.  Christianity,  even 
in  its  highest  influences,  interferes  with  nothing  that  is  good, 
and  would  annihilate  nothing  which  is  not  wrong.  That 
which  is  true,  pure,  and  just,  and  which  is  best  for  the  wel- 
fare of  man,  will  survive  in  all  the  relations  of  life,  when 
Christianity  spreads  all  over  the  world ;  and  to  say  that 
Christianity,  when  fairly  apphed  in  an  individual  case,  as  that 
of  Philemon,  would  destroy  the  system  of  slavery,  is  to  say, 
that  Christianity  would  everywhere  destroy  it,  and  that  it  is 


SCRIITURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  331 

always  WTong — for  what  would  have  existed  in  that  one  family, 
in  reference  to  this  relation,  under  the  fair  influence  of  the 
gospel,  would  exist  in  every  family  on  the  face  of  the 
earth. 

3.  No  argument  in  favour  of  slavery  can  be  derived  from 
the  injunctions  addressed  by  the  apostles  to  slaves  themselves. 

The  argument  on  this  point  in  favour  of  slavery  is  often 
referred  to,  and  is  relied  on,  among  others,  as  conclusive,  in 
proof  that  slavery  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  sinful.  Thus  it  is 
adduced  by  Dr.  Fuller: — 

**The  New  Testament  is  not  silent  as  to  slavery ;  it  recog- 
nises the  relation,  and  commands  slaves  to  obey  their  masters; 
and  what  I  now  atlirm  is  this,  that,  when  we  consider  the 
previous  permission  by  the  Old  Testament,  such  commands 
to  slaves  are  not  only  a  mipprcssio  veri,  but  a  suggcalio  fa/si 
— not  only  a  suppression  of  the  truth,  but  a  suggestion  of 
what  is  false — if  slavery  be  a  sin  of  appalling  magnitude. 
Let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  previous  sanction  had  been 
both  by  God's  conduct  and  express  precept,  and  demanded, 
therefore,  a  countervailing  revelation  of  no  equivocal  sort. 
Yet,  not  only  is  no  condemnation  uttered,  but  slaves  are 
addressed  as  such,  and  required  to  obey. 

"  ♦  Is  any  man  called,'  says  the  apostle,  '  being  circumcised? 
let  him  not  bt  come  uncircumcised.  Is  he  called  in  uncir- 
cumcision,  let  him  not  be  circumcised.  Circumcision  is  no- 
thing, and  uncircumcision  is  nothing,  but  the  keeping  of  the 
commandments  of  God.  Let  every  man  abide  in  the  same 
calling  wherein  he  was  called.  .^r/  (hou  called  being  a 
servant  ."^  care  not  for  it ;  but  if  thou  mayest  be  made  free, 
use  it  rather.  For  he  that  is  called  in  the  Lord,  being  a 
servant,  is  the  Lord's  freeman  :  likewise,  also,  he  that  is  called, 
being  free,  is  Christ's  servant.'  1  Cor.  vii.  18 — 22.  His  ar- 
dent soul  on  fire  with  the  great  salvation,  and  the  anticipations 
of  the  glory  to  be  revealed,  Paul  declares  thai  the  true  spirit 
of  the  gospel,  instead  of  interfering  with  social  relations, 
should  cause  the  believer  to  soar  above  them ;  and  that  tho 


332  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

advantages  and  disadvantages  of  all  earthly  conditions  ought 
to  be  forgotten  and  swallowed  up  in  the  thought  of  those 
transports  and  raptures  to  which  he  is  hastening.  In  the 
verse  just  copied,  while  he  says  liberty  is  to  be  preferred  to 
slavery,  yet  he  adds  that,  in  the  light  of  faith,  the  soul  alone 
has  true  value,  and  even  the  hardest  bondage  is  nothing  at  all, 
the  most  cruel  treatment  nothing  at  all,  not  worth  a  thought, 
if  the  slave  has  been  called  to  the  glorious  liberty  of  the 
gospel.  And  he  classes  the  distinction  between  master  and 
servant  in  the  same  list  with  circumcision  and  uncircum- 
cision,  which  made  no  sort  of  difference."* 

The  passages  relied  on  in  this  argument  are  these,  and 
these  only : — 

1  Cor.  vii.  20 — 24:  "Let  every  man  abide  in  the  same 
calling  wherein  he  was  called.  Art  thou  called  being  a  ser- 
vant ?  care  not  for  it :  but  if  thou  mayest  be  made  free,  use 
it  rather.  For  he  that  is  called  in  the  Lord,  being  a  servant, 
is  the  Lord's  freeman :  likewise  also  he  that  is  called,  being 
free,  is  Christ's  servant.  Ye  are  bought  with  a  price  ;  be  not 
ye  the  servants  of  men.  Brethren,  let  every  man,  wherein  he 
is  called,  therein  abide  with  God." 

Eph.  vi.  5^8:  "Servants,  be  obedient  to  them  that  are 
your  masters  according  to  the  flesh,  with  fear  and  trembling, 
in  singleness  of  your  heart,  as  unto  Christ;  not  with  eye-ser- 
vice, as  men-pleasers  ;  but  as  the  servants  of  Christ,  doing 
the  will  of  God  from  the  heart ;  with  good  will  doing  service, 
as  to  the  Lord,  and  not  to  men :  knowing  that  whatsoever 
good  thing  any  man  doeth,  the  same  shall  he  receive  of  the 
Lord,  whether  he  be  bond  or  free." 

Col.  iii.  22 — 25 :  "  Servants,  obey  in  all  things  your  mas- 
ters according  to  the  flesh ;  not  with  eye-service,  as  men- 
pleasers  ;  but  in  singleness  of  heart,  fearing  God  :  and  what- 
soever ye  do,  do  it  heartily,  as  to  the  Lord,  and  not  unto  men ; 
knowing  that  of  the  Lord  ye  shall  receive  the  reward  of  the 

♦  Dr.  Fuller's  Letters  to  Dr.  Wayland,  pp.  188,  189,  190. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVERY.  333 

inheritance  :  for  ye  serve  the  Lord  Christ.  But  he  that  doelh 
wronj::  shall  receive  for  the  wrong  which  he  hath  done  :  and 
there  is  no  respect  of  persons." 

1  Tim.  vi.  1 — 5 :  "  Let  as  many  servants  as  are  under  the 
yoke  count  their  o\rn  masters  worthy  of  all  honour,  that  the 
name  of  God  and  his  doctrine  be  not  blasphemed.  And  they 
that  have  believing  masters,  let  them  not  despise  them,  be- 
cause they  are  brethren  ;  but  rather  do  them  service,  because 
they  are  faithful  and  beloved,  partakers  of  the  benefit.  These 
things  teach  and  exhort.  If  any  man  teach  otherwise,  and 
consent  not  to  wholesome  words,  even  the  words  of  our  .Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  to  the  doctrine  which  is  according  to  godli- 
ness, he  is  proud,  knowing  nothing,  but  doting  about  ques- 
tions and  strifes  of  words,  whereof  cometh  envy,  strife,  railings, 
evil  surmisings,  perverse  disputings  of  men  of  corrupt  minds, 
and  destitute  of  the  truth,  supposing  that  gain  is  godliness  : 
from  such  withdraw  thyself." 

Titus  ii.  9,  10:  "Exhort  servants  to  be  obedient  unto  their 
own  masters,  and  to  please  them  well  in  all  things;  not 
answering  again ;  not  purloining,  but  showing  all  good  fidelity ; 
that  they  may  adorn  the  doctrine  of  God  our  Saviour  in  all 
things." 

1  Peter  ii.  18 — 20:  "  Servants,  be  subject  to  your  masters 
with  all  fear;  not  only  to  the  good  and  gentle,  but  also  to  the 
froward.  For  this  is  thank-worthy,  if  a  man  for  conscience 
toward  God  endure  grief,  suffering  wrongfully.  For  what 
glory  is  it,  if,  when  ye  be  buffeted  for  your  faults,  ye  shall 
take  it  patiently  ?  but  if,  when  ye  do  well,  and  suffer  for  it, 
ye  take  it  patiently,  this  is  acceptable  with  God." 

The  question  now  is,  whether  these  passages  are  to  be  re- 
garded as  evidence  that  the  apostles  approved  of  slavery,  and 
desired  that  it  should  be  perpetuated  ?  Whether  the  design 
of  these  passages  was  to  induce  the  slaves  themselves  to  be« 
lieve  that  their  condition  was  a  desirable  one  ;  that  all  that 
Christianity  could  do  for  them  was  to  meliorate  their  circum- 
stances in  that  relation  ;  and  that  it  was  contemplated  by  it. 


334  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

that  one  portion  of  the  members  of  the  church  should  always  be 
held  in  bondage  to  another  portion  ? 

If  the  passages  quoted  can  be  regarded  as  proof  on  this 
point,  the  proof  must  either  lie  in  the  fact  that  they  enjoin 
submission  to  their  masters  ;  or  that  they  do  not  enjoin  it  on 
slaves,  as  a  duty,  to  assert  their  freedom  ;  or  that  they  do  not 
even  declare  that  the  slave  had  a  right  to  freedom.  In  refer- 
ence to  this  argument,  I  would  make  the  following  remarks : 

(a)  The  main  duty  which  they  enjoin  on  the  slaves  is  that 
of  patience,  meekness,  fidelity,  kindness,  truth,  and  honesty- 
duties  which  are  obligator}'-  on  Christians  towards  all  men, 
whatever  may  be  their  relations,  and  of  course  towards  mas- 
ters. There  were  certain  vices  to  which  servants  were  par- 
ticularly exposed — as  pilfering,  lying,  purloining,  eye-service ; 
and  the  apostles  enjoin  on  them,  as  Christians,  to  avoid  those 
vices.  So  they  enjoin  a  patient  and  kind  spirit  towards  their 
masters ;  but  this  does  not  prove  that  their  masters  were  right 
in  doing  that  which  made  the  virtues  of  patience  and  meek- 
ness necessary.  When  the  Saviour  enjoins  on  me  to  turn  my 
cheek  to  him  that  smote  me,  it  does  not  prove  that  he  was 
right  who  smote  me  ;  when  he  commands  me  to  give  my 
coat  to  him  who  had  taken  away  my  cloak,  it  does  not  prove 
that  he  had  a  right  to  either  of  them.  There  is  a  Christian 
duty  which  /  am  to  perform  in  the  circumstances  in  which  I 
am  placed,  whatever  may  be  the  conduct  of  others;  but  that 
fact  does  not  prove  that  others  are  right  in  what  they  do  to  me. 
The  injunctions  of  the  apostles  addressed  to  slaves  do  no 
more  to  sanction  the  evils  of  slavery,  than  the  directions  ad- 
dressed to  those  who  are  persecuted  sanction  the  conduct  of 
Nero  and  Mary.  The  fact  that  religion  requires  martyrs 
to  be  unresisting,  and  to  allow  themselves  to  be  led  to  the 
stake,  does  not  demonstrate  that  they  are  right  who  lead  them 
to  the  stake  ;  and  yet  the  argument  in  that  case  would  just  as 
much  prove  that  the  conduct  of  the  persecutor  is  in  accord- 
ance with  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  as  in  the  other,  that 
slavery  is. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  335 

{b)  If  these  passacfes,  enjoining  obedience  and  patience  on 
the  part  of  slaves,  prove  that  slavery  is  right,  and  will  go  to 
justify  it,  they  prove  that  it  was  riglit  as  it  then  existed — for 
the  apostles  do  not  discourse  about  any  abstract  duty  of  obe- 
dience, but  of  obedience  in  the  circumstances  in  which  they 
then  were  placed.  These  injunctions,  then,  go  to  justify  the 
whole  system  of  Roman  servitude,  and  to  show  that  the  apos- 
tles meant  to  lend  their  sanction  to  all  the  abominations  that  were 
practised  in  connection  with  Roman  slavery.  But  it  is  pre- 
sumed that  there  are  no  men  now,  who  will  pretend  that  that 
system  was  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  gospel.  Yet 
that  is  the  only  system  in  reference  to  which  the  apostles  in- 
culcate obedience. 

(c)  If  these  injunctions,  to  be  obedient,  honest,  and  patient, 
prove  that  slavery  is  consistent  with  the  gospel,  the  similar 
injunctions  addressed  to  Christians  to  be  submissive  to  civil 
rulers  will  prove  that  all  the  abominations  of  the  government 
of  Nero  were  right,  and  that  Christians  were  to  submit  to 
them  as  being  right.  The  commands  to  obedience,  patience, 
and  fidelity,  addressed  to  Christians  under  the  administration 
of  that  monster  of  iniquity,  are  as  positive  and  explicit  as  any 
addressed  to  slaves  to  be  submissive  to  their  masters.  Thus 
the  apostle  Paul  says,  (Rom.  xiii.  1 — G,)  "Let  every  soul  be 
subject  unto  the  higher  powers.  For  there  is  no  power  but 
of  God ;  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God.  Whoso- 
ever therefore  resisteth  the  power,  resisteth  the  ordinance  of 
God:  and  they  that  resist  shall  receive  to  themselves  damna- 
tion. For  rulers  are  not  a  terror  to  good  works,  but  to  the 
evil.  Wilt  thou  then  not  be  afraid  of  the  power  ?  do  that 
which  is  good,  and  thou  shall  have  praise  of  the  same:  for  he 
is  the  minister  of  God  to  thee  for  good.  But  if  thou  do  that 
which  is  evil,  be  afraid;  for  he  beareth  not  the  sword  in 
vain  :  for  he  is  the  minister  of  God,  a  revenger  to  execute 
wnilh  upon  him  that  docth  evil.  Wherefore  ve  must  needs  be 
subject,  not  only  for  wrath,  but  also  for  conscience'  sake.  For, 
for  this  cause  pay  ye  tribute  also :  for  they  are  God's  minis- 


336  AN   INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

ters,  attending  continually  upon  this  very  thing."  It  would 
be  as  proper  to  adduce  this  passage,  to  prove  that  the  tyranny 
of  Nero  was  a  good  and  desirable  government ;  that  it  was 
the  design  of  Christianity  to  perpetuate  such  a  government; 
that  it  would  be  wrong  to  attempt  to  throw  it  off  and  establish 
civil  liberty,  as  to  adduce  the  injunctions  addressed  to  slaves 
to  prove  that  slavery  is  a  good  institution.  The  injunctions 
in  the  one  case  are  as  positive  as  in  the  other. 

(d)  In  these  injunctions  addressed  to  slaves,  it  is  worthy  of 
special  observation,  that  the  right  of  the  master  is  never  con- 
ceded, or  even  referred  to.  The  obhgation  to  obedience  and 
fidelity  is  never  put  on  the  ground  that  slavery  is  right ;  that 
it  is  a  good  institution  ;  that  there  is  a  natural  inferiority  of 
one  to  another,  or  thai  the  master  has  in  any  way  a  claim  to 
the  service  of  his  slave.  The  ground  on  which  obedience 
and  fidelity  are  enjoined  is  altogether  different.  It  is,  that, 
whatever  treatment  we  may  receive  from  others,  we  are  to 
manifest  a  spirit  of  submission  and  meekness ;  we  are  to  do 
our  duty  to  our  God,  as  Christians,  in  any  circumstances  in 
which  we  may  be  placed  in  life.  In  this  case,  if  the  apostles 
did  believe  that  slavery  is  right,  and  in  conformity  with  the 
spirit  of  Christianity,  it  is  unaccountable  that  they  did  not  put 
the  obligation  to  obedience  on  that  ground.  That  would  at 
once  have  repressed  any  insubordination  among  the  Christian 
slaves,  and  would  have  prevented  any  bad  effect  on  their 
minds  from  certain  doctrines,  which  they  did  lay  down,  which 
seemed  to  be  adverse  to  slavery,  and  which  a  slave  would  be 
likely  to  construe  as  favourable  to  his  natural  equality  with 
his  master,  and  to  his  right  to  freedom.  If  the  apostles  be- 
lieved that  slavery  is  right,  and  meant  to  be  understood  as 
teaching  that  it  is  to  be  perpetuated,  they  have  been  guilty  of 
a  most  unaccountable  concealment  in  holding  back  this  fact 
from  the  slaves  themselves,  and  in  never  alluding  to  it,  even 
in  the  remotest  degree. 

(e)  The  apostles,  so  far  from  intimating  to  slaves  that  they 
regarded  the  system  as  a  good  one,  constantly  represent  it  as 


H 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVERY.  337 

a  hard  and  undesirable  condition,  and  exhort  them  to  conduct 
tlieniselvfs  in  this  relation  as  under  the  infliction  of  a  wrong. 
They  exhort  them  to  the  exercise  of  just  such  virtues  as  they 
are  bound  to  manifest  who  are  constantly  enduring  wrong — 
the  virtues  of  patience  and  meekness,  and  the  manifestation  of 
a  spirit  not  disposed  to  take  revenge.  Thus  Peter  says, 
*'  Servants,  be  subject  to  your  masters  with  all  fear ;  not  only 
to  the  good  and  gentle,  but  also  to  the  froward.  For  this  is 
thank-worthy,  if  a  man  for  conscience  toward  God  endure 
grief,  sutiering  wrongfully.  For  what  glory  is  it,  if,  when  ye 
be  buffeted  for  your  faults,  ye  shall  take  it  patiently  ?  but  if, 
when  ye  do  well,  and  suffer  for  it,  ye  take  it  patiently,  this  is 
acceptable  with  God."  So  Paul  represents  it  as  a  hard  and 
undesirable  condition,  though  he  exhorts  servants  not  to  be 
anxious  about  it,  but  to  remember  that  they  will  soon  be  de- 
hvered  from  it  in  heaven.  1  Cor.  vii.  21:  **Art  thou  called 
being  a  servant  ?  care  not  for  it ;  but  if  thou  mayest  be  mfide 
free,  use  it  rather.  For  he  that  is  called  in  the  Lord,  being  a 
servant,  is  the  Lord's  freeman."  That  is,  *Let  him  not  be 
concerned  about  the  hardships  of  his  present  condition,  but  let 
him  patiently  submit  to  them.  He  is  already  free  in  a  higher 
and  more  important  sense  than  it  would  be  to  be  emancipated 
from  temporal  bondage,  and  let  him,  in  the  possession  of  that 
more  valuable  liberty,  patiently  bear  the  evils  connected  with 
his  humble  and  trying  situation  in  life,  rejoicing  that  he  is 
endowed  with  higher  freedom — freedom  from  the  degrading 
servitude  of  sin  and  Satan.'  Now,  what  other  relation  of 
life  is  there  which  is  described  in  this  manner  ?  What  other 
is  there,  in  which  the  principal  virtues  recommended  are 
those  which  grow  out  of  the  patient  endurance  of  wrongs  ? 
What  other  is  there,  in  which  the  apostles  exhort  those  who 
are  in  that  relation  *  not  to  care  for  it,'  but  to  rejoice  rather 
that  they  are  free,  in  a  higher  and  more  important  sense  ? 
What  would  have  been  thought  if  tiie  same  kind  of  exhorta- 
tion had  been  addressed  to  wives,  or  to  children,  and  it  had 
been  represented  that  the  principal  virtue  to  be  exhibited  by 

29 


338  AN    INQUIRY    INTO   THE 

a  wife  or  child  was  patient  endurance  of  wrong?  "What 
would  be  inferred  about  the  apostolic  view  of  those  relations, 
if  the  apostles  had  said  to  wives  and  children  that  they  were 
not  to  '  care'  anxiously  on  account  of  their  condition,  but  that 
they  were  to  rejoice  in  the  feeling  that  they  were  *  free  '  in 
a  higher  sense,  and  that  the  ills  of  the  condition  of  a  wife  or 
child,  therefore,  should  be  patiently  borne  ?  And  what  would 
be  inferred,  if  he  had  told  them  that  if  they  might  be  '  free* 
from  a  husband  or  father  '  to  use  it  rather  V  But  no  such 
exhortations  as  these  are  found  in  the  New  Testament,  and  the 
relation  of  master  and  slave,  therefore,  is  not  like  other  relations. 
(y)  Slaves  were  directed,  if  possible,  to  obtain  a  release 
from  their  hard  condition.  They  were  taught  to  prefer  free- 
dom, and  to  obtain  it,  if  they  could  consistently  with  the 
manifestation  of  the  spirit  of  the  gospel.  Thus  the  apostle 
Paul  expressly  says,  (1  Cor.  vii.  21,)  "Art  thou  called  being 
a  servant  ?  care  not  for  it :  but  if  thou  mayest  be  free,  use  it 
rather."  Here  there  is  a  distinct  assertion  that  freedom  is 
preferable  to  slavery,  and  that  the  slave  should  not  regard  his 
condition  as  the  best  and  most  desirable,  though, in  comparison 
with  the  higher  freedom  which  the  gospel  imparts  in  deliver- 
ing the  soul  from  sin,  he  was  to  regard  his  servitude  as  com- 
paralively  unimportant.  This  might  be,  and  yet  it  might 
be  true  that  slavery  was  a  great  evil.  Yet  the  command  is 
clear,  that  if  it  was  in  the  power  of  the  slave  to  become  free, 
(ft  xai  Svmffai  iXsv^fpoj  ysvia^at,)  he  was  to  avail  himself  of  the 
privilege.  If  either  the  laws  or  his  master  set  him  free ; 
if  he  could  purchase  his  liberty  ;  if  a  friend  would  purchase 
it  for  him ;  if  in  any  way  that  was  not  shiful  he  could  obtain 
his  freedom,  he  was  to  embrace  the  opportunity.  But  where 
is  there  any  representation  like  this  in  regard  to  a  wife  or 
child  ?  What  should  we  think  of  the  condition  of  a  wife  or 
child  if  there- Aarf  been  such  a  representation?  But  there  is 
none.  It  is  never  said  or  impHed  that  their  condition,  as  such, 
is  a  hard  or  undesirable  one,  and  that  they  should,  if  possible, 
escape  from  it. 


SIRIPTURAL    Vir.WS    OK    SLAVKllV.  339 

(s:)  To  all  this  is  adilod,  in  regard  to  the  slave,  that,  if  he 
could  not  he  free,  he  was  to  comfort  himself  with  the  reflec- 
tion that  he  had  been  emancipated  from  the  greater  evil — niriy 
and  therefore  was  to  boar  with  patience  the  lesser  temporary 
evil — servitude :  that  in  his  condition  it  was  possible  for  him 
to  serve  Christ  acceptably  ;  that  the  evils  of  his  hard  lot  did 
not  prevent  his  becoming  a  true  Christian,  and  cherishing  the 
hope  of  eternal  life  ;  and  that  he  should  patiently  bear  those 
evils,  submitting  to  the  arrangements  respecting  them  over 
which  he  had  no  control,  as  to  any  other  wrong.  1  Cor.  vii. 
2*-2:  "  For  he  that  is  called  in  the  Lord,  being  a  servant,  is  the 
LoriPs  freeman y  '  He  is  manumitted,  made  free,  endowed 
with  liberty  by  the  Lord.'  The  meaning  is,  'You  are  blessed 
with  freedom  from  the  bondage  of  sin  by  the  Lord.  That 
servitude  was  far  more  grievous,  and  far  more  to  be  lamented, 
than  the  bondage  of  the  body.  You  are  now  a  true  freeman, 
the  freeman  of  the  Lord.  Your  spirit  is  free  ;  while  those 
who  are  not  slaves,  and  perhaps  your  own  masters,  are  even 
now  under  a  more  severe  bondage  than  yours.  You  should 
rejoice,  therefore,  in  deliverance  from  the  greater  evil,  and  be 
glad  that  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord  you  are  regarded  as  his 
freeman,  and  are  endowed  by  him  with  more  valuable  liberty 
than  it  would  be  to  be  delivered  from  the  servitude  under 
which  you  are  now  placed.  You  will  soon  be  admitted  to 
the  eternal  liberty  of  the  saints  in  glory,  and  will  forget  all 
your  toils,  and  privations,  and  wrongs,  here  below.'  But, 
where,  I  may  repeat,  is  there  any  such  representation  made 
to  a  wife,  or  a  child,  or  even  to  the  subject  of  a  civil  govern- 
ment ?  Where  are  they  told  to  console  themselves  in  their 
hard  condition  with  the  reflection  that  they,  by  deliverance 
from  sin,  have  been  released  from  afar  greater  evil  than  the 
condition  of  a  wife  or  child,  and  that,  therefore,  they  should 
not  regard  the  evils  of  their  condition  with  solicitude  ?  Where 
are  they  told  that  though  under  the  law  of  a  husband,  a 
parent,  or  a  civil  ruler,  they  were  '  the  Lord's  freemen,' 
and  should  now  bear  patiently  the  lesser  evils  of  their  bond- 


340  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

age  in  these  relations,  exulting  in  their  higher  liberty  as  the 
freemen  of  the  Lord  ?  There  are  no  such  exhortations  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  the  apostles  never  designed  to  repre- 
sent the  relations  of  husband  and  wife,  and  parent  and  child, 
and  master  and  slave,  as  similar,  or  to  leave  the  impression 
that  the  one  was  as  proper  and  as  desirable  for  the  good  of  a 
community  as  the  other. 

From  the  arguments  thus  far  presented  in  regard  to  the 
relation  of  Christianity  to  slavery,  it  seems  fair  to  draw  the 
conclusion  that  the  Christian  religion  lends  no  sanction  to 
slavery  ;  that  it  is  not  adverted  to  in  the  New  Testament 
either  as  a  good  and  desirable  relation,  or  as  one  that  religion 
would  have  originated  for  the  good  of  society,  or  as  one 
which  it  is  desirable  to  perpetuate  in  order  that  society  may 
reach  the  highest  point  in  its  progress  which  it  can  reach.  It 
would  be  clearly  impossible  to  find  a  hint  that  would  be  the 
slightest  basis  of  an  argument  to  prove  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment that  either  Christ  or  his  apostles  would  have  originated 
slavery,  or  that  they  regarded  it  as  a  good  and  desirable  insti- 
tution. There  is  but  one  point,  then,  necessary  to  complete 
the  argument,  which  is  to  inquire  whether  they  expressed 
any  views,  or  laid  down  any  principles, which,  if  fairly  acted 
on,  would  tend  to  its  abolition. 

§  4.  The  principles  laid  down  by  the  Saviour  and  his  t^pos- 
tles  are  such  as  are  opposed  to  Slavery,  and  if  carried  out 
would  secure  its  universal  abolition. 

In  addition  to  what  has  already  been  said,  which  might  be 
appropriately  introduced  under  this  head,  I  would  make  some 
additional  remarks.  The  inquiry  is,  what  was  the  intention 
of  the  Saviour  in  regard  to  this  institution  ?  What  would  be 
the  result  of  a  fair  application  of  the  principles  of  his  religion 
in  regard  to  it  ?  Did  he  design  that  it  should  be  understood 
to  be  a  good  system,  and  one  which  his  religion  was  intended 
to  sanction  and  perpetuate  ? 


SClUPTlTvAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVERY.  341 

To  show  that  the  institution  of  slavery  is  contrary  to  the 
Christian  religion,  and  inconsistent  with  its  spirit  ;  that  it  is 
regarded  as  an  evil  which  religion  was  designed  to  remove 
from  the  world  ;  and  that  it  cannot  be  perpetuated  consistently 
with  the  fair  influence  of  the  gospel,  I  would  now  submit  the 
following  considerations  : — 

(1.)  The  Saviour  and  his  apostles  inculcated  such  views  of 
man  as  amount  to  a  prohibition  of  slavery,  or  as  if  acted  on 
would  abolish  it.  In  other  words,  they  gave  such  views  of 
mail,  that,  under  their  influence,  no  one  would  make  or  retain 
a  slave.  This  argument  I  cannot  express  in  a  better  manner 
than  is  done  by  Dr.  Wayland : — 

*»  In  what  manner,  then,  did  the  Saviour  and  his  apostles 
deal  with  this  universal  sin  ?  I  answer,  by  promulgating 
such  truths  concerning  the  nature  and  destiny  of  man,  his 
relations  and  obligations  both  to  man  and  to  his  Maker,  as 
should  render  the  slavery  of  a  human  being  a  manifest  moral 
absurdity ;  that  is,  a  notion  diametrically  opposed  to  our  ele- 
mentary moral  suggestions.  Let  us  observe  how  strangely 
they  are  in  contrast  with  all  that  was  then  known  of  the  cha- 
racter and  value  of  a  man. 

"To  men  who  had  scarcely  an  idea  of  the  character,  or 
even  the  existence,  of  a  Supreme  Intelligence,  and  whose 
objocts  of  adoration  were  images  of  '  gold  and  silver  and  stone, 
graven  with  art  and  man's  device,'  and  whose  worship  con- 
sisted in  the  orgies  of  Venus  and  Bacchus,  the  gospel  revealed 
the  existence  of  one  only  living  and  true  Jehovah,  all-wise, 
all-just,  all-holy,  everywhere  present  beholding  the  evil  and 
the  good,  knowing  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart,  who 
will  bring  every  secret  thing  into  judgment,  whether  it  be 
good  or  whether  it  be  evil,  and  who  has  placed  us  all  under 
one  and  the  same  law,  that  law  which  declares,  'Thou  shall 
love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  thy  neighbour 
as  thyself.' 

"  To  men  who  had  scarcely  an  idea  of  existence  after  death, 
whose  notions  of  futurity  were  the  fables  of  Charon's  boat, 

20* 


342  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

the  Styx,  and  Tartarus — fables  which  were  already  held  up 
as  objects  of  inextinguishable  laughter — the  gospel  revealed 
the  doctrine  of  man's  immortality ;  it  taught  that  every  human 
being  was  a  never-dying  soul ;  that  the  world  to  come  was  a 
state  either  of  endless  and  inconceivable  happiness  or  of  wo ; 
that  for  this  infinitely  important  state,  the  present  brief  ex- 
istence was  the  probation  and  the  only  probation  that  God  had 
allotted  to  us ;  and  that,  during  this  probation,  every  one  of 
our  race  must  by  his  own  moral  character  determine  his  des- 
tiny for  himself. 

*'  To  men  who  had  scarcely  formed  an  idea  of  their  moral 
relations,  the  gospel  revealed  the  fact  that  our  race  were  uni- 
versally sinners,  and  were,  without  exception,  under  the  con- 
demnation of  that  law  which  denounces  eternal  death  as  the 
desert  of  every  transgression ;  that  God  placed  such  an  esti- 
mate upon  a  human  soul,  nay,  that  he  so  loved  the  world  that 
he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  beheveth  on 
him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life ;  and  that,  in 
consequence  of  this  atonement,  eternal  salvation  is  freely 
offered  to  every  human  being,  who,  repenting  of  his  rebeUion, 
will  return  to  the  loA-e  and  service  of  God. 

"To  men  steeped  in  the  most  debasing  and  universal  sen- 
suality, whose  motto  was,  '  Let  us  eat  and  drink,  for  to-morrow 
w^e  die,'  the  gospel  revealed  the  truth,  that  while  this  salva- 
tion was  thus  freely  offered  to  all,  yet  still  every  individual 
of  our  race  was  placed  on  earth  to  work  out  his  salvation  with 
fear  and  trembling ;  that  he  was  still,  in  the  strictest  possible 
sense,  in  a  state  of  probation;  and  that  in  a  world  lying  in 
Avickedness,  surrounded  by  every  temptation  to  sin,  exposed 
to  all  the  allurements  of  vice,  and  assailed  by  all  the  arts  of 
the  adversary  of  souls,  he  must  come  off  conqueror  over  every 
moral  enemy,  or  else  he  will  after  all  perish  under  a  most 
aggravated  condemnation. 

"And  lastly,  to  men  who  esteemed  the  people  of  another 
nation  as  by  nature  foes  whom  they  had  a  right  to  subdue, 
murder,  or  enslave,  whenever  and  in  what  manner  soever  they 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OK    SLAVKRY.  343 

were  able,  the  gospel  revoalfd  the  fact  that  all  men  are,  by  the 
act  of  their  crcauon,  hi-cthreii ;  that  all  are  equally  beloved 
by  the  same  Father  of  all ;  that  Christ  died  equally  for  all  ; 
that  all  are  equally  exposed  to  the  same  perdition  ;  that  to  all 
is  equally  ofl'ered  a  mansion  in  the  same  Father's  house,  and 
that  the  title  to  that  inheritance,  the  same  to  all,  can  be  secured 
in  no  other  way  than  by  obedience  to  the  universal  law  of 
love,  a  law  enforced  by  the  solemn  sanction,  '  Inasmuch  as  ye 
did  it  not  to  one  of  the  least  of  these,  ye  did  it  not  inito  inc.'' 

"Such,  then,  were  some  of  the  effulgent  truths  which  the 
gospel  poured  upon  the  moral  darkness  of  the  heathen  world. 
Such  was  the  entire  revolution  (the  word,  you  perceive,  is 
feebleness  itself  when  applied  to  such  a  case)  which  the  gos- 
pel eflected  in  all  the  notions  which  were  then  entertained 
respecting  the  character,  the  destiny,  the  responsibilities,  and 
the  inestimable  value  of  a  man.  We  feel  at  once  that  the 
highest  seraph  around  the  throne  would  not  dare  to  violate 
the  meanest  ri^ht  of  the  meanest  creature  who  stood  in  such 
a  relation  to  God  ;  infinitely  less  would  he  dare,  for  the  sake 
of  his  own  temporary  convenience,  to  interfere  with  any  of  the 
means  to  which  such  a  creature  was  entitled,  for  ascertaining 
and  doing  the  will  of  God,  and  thus  escaping  eternal  death, 
and  laying  hold  on  everlasting  life.  'Are  they  not  all  minis- 
tering spirits,  sent  forth  to  minister  to  those  that  are  heirs  of 
salvation  V  What  shall  we  say,  then,  if  a  creature  of  yester- 
day, himself  subject  to  the  same  law,  exposed  to  the  same 
condemnation,  and  going  to  the  same  judgment-seat,  abolishes, 
at  his  own  pleasure,  and  on  the  authority  of  physical  force, 
the  social,  intellectual,  and  moral  rights  of  his  brother ;  and 
for  the  sake  of  pecuniary  gain  interferes  with  the  most  solemn 
relations  which  can  exist  between  the  God  and  Father  of  us 
all,  and  his  child  here  on  earth — a  child  redeemed  with  the 
precious  blood  of  his  only-begotten  Son. 

"  It  is  obvious  that  such  principles  as  these,  instilled  into 
the  public  mind,  must  of  necessity  abolish  slavery,  and  every 
other  form  of  wrong.     Just  in  so  far  as  slavery  is,  either  in 


344  AN    INQUIRY    INTO   THE 

its  principles  or  its  practice,  at  variance  with  these  elementary 
truths  of  revealed  religion,  it  is  forbidden.  Whether  it  be 
thus  at  variance,  let  every  man  judge.'** 

To  these  remarks  I  would  add,  that  the  Christian  religion 
teaches  that  "  God  hath  made  of  one  blood  all  the  nations  of 
men  for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth,"  (Acts  xvii.  26,) 
and  that  as  the  children  of  the  common  Father  they  are  re- 
garded as  equal.  All  the  right  which  one  human  being  has 
ever  been  supposed  to  have  over  another,  in  virtue  of  any 
superiority  in  rank,  complexion,  or  blood,  is  evidently  con- 
trary to  this  doctrine  of  the  Bible  in  regard  to  the  origin  and 
equality  of  the  human  race.  The  common  nature  which 
man  has,  is  not  affected,  in  any  respect,  by  the  colour  of  his 
hair  or  his  skin,  by  the  difference  of  his  stature,  by  national 
physiognomy,  or  by  any  ethnographical  distinctions  in  the  form 
of  the  skull.  This  common  nature,  as  distinct  from  the  brute 
creation,  remains  the  same  under  every  external  appearance, 
and  every  form  of  intellectual  and  moral  development.  A 
man  may  be  wiser  or  less  wise  than  I  am  ;  he  may  have  more 
or  less  property  ;  he  may  have  a  more  richly  endowed,  or  an 
inferior  mental  capacity,  but  this  does  not  affect  our  common 
nature.  He  is  in  every  respect,  notwithstanding  our  differ- 
ence in  these  things,  as  completely  a  human  being  as  my- 
self; and  he  stands  in  precisely  the  same  relations  towards 
the  Creator  and  Father  of  all.  He,  like  myself,  has  an  im- 
mortal soul,  and  is  placed  in  a  state  of  probation,  as  a  candidate 
for  everlasting  happiness  or  everlasting  wo.  He  has  an  in- 
tellect capable  of  an  endless  progression  in  knowledge  ;  and 
God  has  given  him  the  right  to  improve  it  to  the  utmost.  He 
is  endowed  with  a  conscience,  which,  like  his  immortal  intel- 
lect, for  ever  constitutes  an  impassable  line  between  him  and 
the  inferior  races  of  the  animal  creation.  In  virtue  of  this 
endowment,  it  is  his  right  and  privilege  to  seek  to  know  the 
will  of  God,  and  to  act  always  with  reference  to  the  future 

•  Fuller  and  Wayland  on  Slavery,  pp.  90,  91,  92,  93. 


SCRIPTUHAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  345 

Slate  on  which  he  is  soon  to  enter.  He  is  a  sinner,  and,  as 
such,  is  placed  in  substantially  the  same  circumstances  with 
all  others  l)efore  God,  in  reference  to  the  rewards  of  heaven  or 
the  pains  of  hell.  It  was  with  reference  to  this  common  na- 
ture that  redemption  was  provided.  It  was  our  common  na- 
ture which  the  Son  of  God  assumed  when  he  became  incar- 
nate, and,  in  tliat  assumption,  and  in  all  his  sufFering-s  for 
man,  he  regarded  the  race  as  having  such  a  common  nature. 
He  was  not  a  Jen\  except  by  the  accident  of  his  birth  ;  but  he 
was  a  inan^  and  in  his  human  frame  there  was  as  distinct  a 
relation  to  the  African  and  the  Malay,  as  there  was  to  the 
Caucasian.  The  blood  that  fiowed  in  his  veins,  and  that  was 
shed  on  the  cross  for  human  redemption,  was  the  blood  of  a 
human  being — a  descendant  of  Adam — and  had  as  much  re- 
ference, when  it  warmed  his  heart  with  benevolence,  and  when 
it  was  shed  on  the  cross,  to  a  descendant  of  Ham  as  to  the 
posterity  of  Japheth  or  Shcm.  Every  human  being  has  a 
right  to  feel  that  when  the  Son  of  God  became  incarnate  he 
took  his  nature  upon  him,  and  to  regard  him  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  that  common  humanity.  It  is  on  the  basis  of  that 
common  nature  that  the  gospel  is  commanded  to  be  preached 
to  '  every  creature,'  and  any  one  human  being  has  a  right  to 
consider  that  gospel  as  addressed  to  him  with  as  specific  an 
intention  as  to  any  other  human  being  whatever.  It  is  on  the 
basis  of  that  common  nature  also  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  sent 
down  from  heaven  to  awaken,  convict,  and  convert  the  soul ; 
and  any  human  being,  no  matter  what  his  complexion,  may 
regard  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be  as  much  addressed 
to  him  as  to  any  other  one — though  that  other  one  may  have 
a  more  comely  form  or  complexion  ;  may  be  clothed  in  the 
imperial  purple,  or  may  wear  a  coronet,  or  a  crown.  In  all 
respects  pertaining  to  our  common  origin  ;  to  our  nature  as 
distinct  from  the  brute  creation  ;  to  the  fall  and  to  redemption ; 
to  the  rights  of  conscience  and  to  the  hopes  of  glory,  the  hu- 
man race  is  regarded  in  the  Bible  as  on  a  level.  There  is  an 
entire  system  of  things  which  contemplates  i7ian  an  such  as 


r 


346  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

distinguished  from  the  inferior  creation;  not  one  of  which 
pertains  to  a  brute,  however  near  the  brute  may  seem  to  ap- 
proximate a  human  being,  and  each  one  of  which  is  as  appli- 
cable to  one  human  being  as  to  another. 

If  these  views  are  correct,  then  all  the  reliance  which  the 
system  of  slavery  has  ever  been  thought  to  derive  from  the 
supposed  fact  that  one  class  of  human  beings  is  essentially 
inferior  to  another,  is  a  false  reliance.  At  all  events,  such 
views  will  find  no  support  in  the  Bible,  and  they  must  be  left 
to  be  maintained  by  those  who  recognise  the  Christian  Scrip- 
tures as  of  no  authority.  A  man  acting  on  the  views  laid 
down  in  the  Bible  on  this  subject,  would  never  make  a  slave  ; 
a  man  acting  on  these  views  would  not  long  retain  a  slave : 
and  Christianity,  by  laying  down  this  doctrine  of  the  essential 
equality  of  the  race,  has  stated  a  doctrine  which  must  sooner 
or  later  emancipate  every  human  being  from  bondage. 

(2.)  The  gospel  regards  every  human  being  as  invested 
with  such  rights  as  are  inconsistent  with  his  being  held  as  a 
slave ;  that  is,  these  rights,  as  recognised  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, always  have  been  violated  where  slavery  exists ;  are 
liable  to  be  violated  at  any  time  ;  and  there  is  no  way  of  effec- 
tually guarding  against  such  violation,  for  the  power  to  violate 
them  enters  into  every  proper  conception  of  slavery.  In  other 
words,  it  is  involved  in  the  notion  of  the  system  that  the  slave- 
holder has  power  to  violate  what  are  undoubted  laws  of  God, 
and  to  interfere  with  and  annul  the  arrangements  which  he 
has  instituted  for  the  good  of  man.  If  this  be  so,  it  will  be 
conceded  that  the  New  Testament  does  not  contemplate 
slavery  as  right,  or  as  an  institution  to  be  perpetuated  for  the 
good  of  society. 

Among  those  rights  which  are  liable  to  be  violated  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  slaveholder,  and  against  the  violation  of  which, 
from  the  very  nature  of  slavery,  it  is  impossible  to  guard,  are 
the  following : — 

{a)  The  rights  involved  in  the  marriage  relation.  The 
master  necessarily  holds  the  power  of  preventing  its  being 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVERY.  347 

formed,  or  of  annulling  it  .it  his  pleasure.  This  results  from 
the  very  nature  of  slavery,  and  never  has  been  forbidden,  and 
never  can  be,  while  slavery  retains  its  essential  features.  It 
results  from  the  right  o{  property  ;  for  the  right  to  buy  a  thing 
implies  a  right  to  sell  it  again ;  and  as  a  man  in  purchasing 
one  slave  is  under  no  obligation  to  purchase  another,  though 
it  be  the  wife  or  child  of  the  former,  so  it  is  in  regard  to  the 
sale.  As  in  procuring  slaves  originally,  whether  by  the  con- 
quests of  war,  by  kidnapping,  or  by  purchase,  no  respect  was 
had  to  the  relations  which  they  might  sustain  to  their  fumihes, 
or  any  duties  which  might  grow  out  of  such  relations,  so  there 
is  no  reference  to  any  such  duties  or  relations  in  the  tenure 
by  which  they  are  held.  On  this  very  obvious  principle  all 
the  laws  pertaining  to  slavery  in  this  land  are  founded.  The 
right  to  separate  husband  and  wife,  parent  and  child,  and 
brothtr  and  sister,  is  nowhere  forbidden,  and  this  power  is 
constantly  acted  on.  It  is  not  known  that  an  attempt  has 
ever  been  made  to  regulate  this  by  law,  and  the  only  influence 
by  which  it  is  sought  to  control  it  is  by  an  appeal  to  the  hu- 
manity of  masters.  There  are  doubtless  thousands  of  cases 
where  the  master  ivould  not  separate  a  husband  from  his  wife 
by  selling  one  without  the  other,  but  this  does  not  prove  that 
the  law  does  not  regard  them  as  having  the  power,  and  is  not 
to  be  taken  into  the  account  in  estimating  the  character  of  the 
system. 

Even  supposing,  moreover,  that  the  husband  and  wife  are 
not  actually  separated  from  each  other,  and  the  marriage  bond 
wholly  disregarded,  still  there  are  duties  enjoined  in  reference 
to  this  relation  in  the  New  Testament  which  the  recognised 
power  of  the  master  wholly  sets  aside.  In  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  husband  is  declared  to  be  the  "  head  of  the  wife,  as 
Christ  is  the  head  of  the  church,"  (Eph.  v.  2^3,  1  Cor.  xi.  3,) 
and  as  such  has  a  right  to  rule  in  his  family.  The  wife,  as 
such,  is  commanded  to  he  subject  to  her  husband  ;  to  recognise 
his  authority ;  to  obey  him ;  to  love  him ;  to  submit  to  him 
in  all  things.     "As  the  church  is  subject  to  Clirist,  so  let  the 


348  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

Avives  be  to  their  own  husbands  in  everj^  thing."  Eph.  v.  24. 
Comp.  Eph.  V.  83;  Titus  ii.  4,  5 ;  1  Pet.  iii.  1.  Now  this 
command  is  practically  nullified  in  every  case  where  slavery 
exists.  The  master^  not  the  husband^  possesses  supreme  au- 
thority in  relation  to  every  slave,  male  or  female,  and  his  will 
is  to  be  obeyed,  and  not  that  of  the  husband,  if  they  ever  come 
in  conflict.  The  master,  too,  by  the  laws  of  all  slaveholding 
communities,  has  the  power  of  enforcinsc  obedience  by  punish- 
ment, even  when  it  is  against  every  wish  and  will  of  the  hus- 
band. This  power  extends  to  her  manner  of  employing  her 
time  ;  to  her  whole  domestic  arrangements ;  to  her  hours  of 
labour  and  of  rest ;  to  her  food  and  raiment ;  to  her  habitation, 
and  to  every  comfort.  Even  when  the  husband  is  sick,  there  is 
no  power  of  enforcing  any  right  which  the  wife  has  by  the 
laws  of  marriage  in  the  Bible,  to  attend  on  him,  and  soothe 
his  sorrows;  and  though  it  may  be  that  the  duties  which  a 
wife  owes  to  her  husband  in  such  cases  may  not  often  be 
prevented  by  an  absolute  interference  on  the  part  of  the 
master,  yet  the  fact  that  it  is  not,  is  not  to  be  traced  to  any 
mercy  in  the  institution  of  slaver v,  or  the  laws,  but  to  the 
mercy  of  our  common  humanity.  Nothing  prevents  the 
master  from  setting  at  naught  the  whole  law  of  God  on  the 
subject. 

{b)  Slavery  interferes  with  the  natural  right  which  a  father 
has  over  his  children.  This  results,  too,  from  the  nature  of 
property  implied  in  the  relation.  The  primary  and  the  con- 
trolling notion  is,  that  the  child  is  otvned  by  the  master,  not 
that  he  is  placed  under  the  control  and  authority  of  his  father. 
The  master,  not  the  father,  is  supreme.  The  Bible  recognises 
certain  duties  as  growing  out  of  the  relation  of  a  father  and 
child,  which  are  never  acknowledged  in  the  code  of  slavery  ; 
and  enjoins  certain  duties  which  the  father  can  never  perform, 
except  at  the  pleasure  of  the  master.  The  father  is  displaced 
from  the  position  where  God  has  assigned  him,  and  the  master 
is  substituted  in  his  place.  The  Bible  has  laid  down  certain 
duties  as  binding  on  the  parent,  as  such,  and  which  properly 


SCRIPTITRAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  349 

grow  out  of  ihe  relation  of  parent  and  cliild.  The  parent  is  to 
"coniinanJ  his  cluldrm  and  his  liousehold  after  him,"  (Gen. 
xviii.  19;)  he  is  to  "bring  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admo- 
nition of  the  Lord,"  (Eph.  vi.  4  ;)  he  is  to  "  provide  for  liis 
ouTi,and  specially  for  those  of  his  own  house,"  (1  Tim.  v.  5 ;) 
he  is  to  instruct  them  in  the  ways  and  duties  of  religion,  to 
lead  their  devotions,  to  seek  to  prepare  them  for  heaven,  to  be 
their  counsellor  and  adviser  in  regard  to  the  perplexities  and 
duties  of  life.  Children,  on  the  other  hand,  all  children,  are 
to  'honour  their  father  and  mother,  that  their  days  may  be 
long  in  the  land,'  (Ex.  xx.  12 ;)  they  are  to  '  obey  their 
parents  in  all  thins^s,'  (Col.  iii.  20;)  tJiey  are  to  'obey  tlieir 
parents  in  the  Lord,'  (Eph.  vi.  1.)  Now,  it  is  impossible  to 
secure  the  discharge  of  these  duties  under  the  system  of 
slavery.  The  whole  question  whether  a  father  mai/  perform 
these  duties  at  all,  rests  with  the  master.  The  father's  own 
time  is  not  at  his  disposal ;  he  is  at  liberty  to  select  and 
appoint  no  hours  when  he  will  instruct  his  children  ;  he  has 
no  right  to  designate  any  time  when  he  will  even  prai/  with 
his  family ;  and  the  whole  business  of  *  providing  for  his  own* 
is  entirely  taken  out  of  his  hands.  The  master  provides,  and 
is  the  agent  appointed  by  the  laws  to  do  it.  The  father  is 
under  no  obligation  by  the  laws  even  to  attempt  it.  It  is  not 
presumed  that  he  can  do  it.  It  is  not  understood  that  he  ever 
will  do  it.  He  violates  none  of  the  obligations  contemplated 
by  slavery,  if  he  makes  no  provision  whaferei-  for  his  children 
while  he  himself  shall  live,  or  after  he  is  dead  ;  if  he  leaves 
them  to  suffer  without  one  sympathizing  look  or  word  ;  if  he 
provides  no  physician  for  them  in  sickness,  or  even  if  he  does 
not  see  them  decently  buried  when  they  are  dead.  Food  and 
raiment ;  medicine  and  physicians ;  shrouds,  coffins,  and 
graves  are  to  be  provided  by  the  master.  It  is  not  contem- 
plated by  the  law  that  the  slave  can  ever  be  the  owner  of 
properly  enough  to  furnish  his  child  a  coffin  or  a  grave.  So 
also  in  the  whole  duty  of  training  the  child  for  heaven.  If 
time  is  to  be  taken  for  that,  it  is  to  be  at  the  pleasure  of  the 

yo 


350  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

master;  if  a  religious  teacher  is  to  be  employed,  it  is  only  at 
his  pleasure,  and  under  his  direction. 

The  law  of  God  is  perhaps  still  more  entirely  nullified,  in 
regard  to  the  duty  which  the  child  owes  to  its  parent.  Here 
it  is  impossible  for  him  to  obey  the  command  of  God  requiring 
subjection  to  his  parent,  if  the  will  of  the  master  comes  in  con- 
flict with  his.  It  is  not  designed  that  the  parent  shall  be 
obeyed.  The  master  has  the  absolute  authority,  and  has  the 
right  to  counteract  any  of  the  requirements  of  the  father.  The 
master,  not  the  parent,  directs  in  regard  to  the  employment 
of  the  time,  and  appoints  every  task  that  is  to  be  performed. 
The  master  has  authority  in  the  whole  matter  of  discipline, 
and  punishment  is  administered,  not  because  the  laws  of  a 
father  have  been  disregarded,  but  because  the  will  of  the 
master  has  been  disobeyed.  The  spirit  of  the  whole  institu- 
tion is,  not  that  the  father  is  to  be  obeyed,  but  the  master  ; 
and  if  the  father  is  not  obeyed,  the  law  lends  no  help  to 
secure  the  respect  and  obedience  of  the  child.  The  law  has 
displaced  the  father  from  the  position  which  God  gave  him, 
and  has  substituted  the  authority  of  another. 

(c)  Slavery  interferes  with  the  natural  right  which  every 
human  being  has,  to  worship  God  according  to  his  own  views 
of  what  is  true.  That  this  right  is  recognised  in  the  Bible,  it 
would  be  needless  to  attempt  to  prove.  See  Acts  iv.  18 — 20, 
V.  29;  John  v.  39 ;  1  Cor.  x.  29;  1  Thess.  v.  21 ;  1  John 
iv.  1;  Prov.  iv.  13;  Luke  xi.  52;  Deut.  x.  12,  xiii.  4. 
The  right  to  do  this  is  everywhere  now  conceded,  and  is 
regarded  as  one  of  the  great  and  inalienable  principles  of 
Protestantism  and  of  liberty.  It  is  the  most  important  position 
which  society  has  taken  in  its  progress  toward  that  state  of 
perfectness  which  it  is  destined  to  attain ;  the  last  point  which 
society  is  to  reach  in  this  direction — the  ultima  Thule  of 
human  hopes  and  prospects  on  this  point.  To  establish  this 
principle  has  cost  more  than  any  other  which  enters  into  just 
notions  of  liberty — for  it  is  the  result  of  discussions  and  in- 
quiries pursued  for  ages  ;  of  all  the  persecutions  and  martyr- 


SCRirTURAL    Vir.WS    OF    SLAVKRY.  351 

doms  that  have  been  endured ;  of  all  the  self-denials  and 
sacritices  in  the  cause  of  freedom.  To  maintain  and  enjoy 
the  right  of  the  undisturbed  privileges  of  religion;  the  right 
to  worship  God  unmolested;  the  right  to  hold  what  opinions 
they  pleased  ;  to  worship  God  where,  and  when,  and  how- 
ever they  pleased ;  our  fathers  came  to  this  western  land, 
and  endured  all  the  sacrifices  incident  to  the  perilous  voyage 
across  the  deep,  and  the  peopling  of  what  was  then  u  vast  and 
inhospitable  wilderness.  There  is  no  other  right  for  which 
an  American  citizen,  at  the  North  or  the  South,  would  more 
cheerfully  lay  down  his  life  ;  none  from  which  he  would  not 
sooner  part. 

And  yet  this  right,  so  invaluable,  is  practically  denied  to 
the  slave  wherever  the  institution  exists.  The  abundant 
quotations  which  I  have  made,  in  the  former  part  of  this  work, 
from  the  laws  of  the  Southern  states,  show,  that,  whatever 
kindness  there  may  be  on  the  part  of  many  masters,  this  great 
right,  so  far  as  the  slave  is  concerned,  is  denied  him.  Every 
thing  pertaining  to  the  worship  of  God — the  time,  the  place, 
the  manner — is  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  master;  and  there 
is  not  a  company  of  slaves  in  the  land  that,  according  to  the 
laws,  can  act  freeb^  in  the  worship  of  their  Maker.  The 
condition  in  which  the  early  Puritans  were  placed  in  Eng- 
land, in  the  times  of  Elizabeth,  James,  and  Charles  I. ;  the 
condition  in  which  the  Nonconformists  and  Quakers  were,  in 
the  time  of  Charles  II. ;  the  condition  in  which  the  Pilgrim 
Fathers  were,  in  England  and  Holland — a  condition  so  se- 
vere, that  they  sought  the  inhospitable  shores  of  New  England, 
in  the  dead  of  winter,  rather  than  endure  it — all  these  are 
nothing,  when  compared  with  the  absolute  right  which  the 
master  has  over  his  slaves  in  the  Southern  states.  The  world, 
even  in  the  worst  times  of  civil  oppression,  has  never  seen 
any  thing  worse  than  this ;  rfny  thing  which  more  entirely 
interferes  with  every  sacred  right  of  conscience. 

And  can  any  man  believe,  that  it  was  the  design  of  God  to 
sanction  such  a  system,  or  that  it  is  in  accordance  with  the 


352  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

principles  of  the  New  Testament,  and  is  to  be  perpetuated  for 
the  good  of  society  ?  Can  it  be  believed,  that  God  meant  to 
put  the  authority  to  regulate  entirely  the  manner  in  which  he 
should  be  worshipped, into  the  hands  of  any  man  ?  The  whole 
chivalry  of  the  South  would  be  in  arms,  if  an  attempt  were 
made,  from  any  quarter,  to  impose  on  them  the  same  restric- 
tions in  regard  to  the  worship  of  God  which  the  laws  make 
necessary  respecting  the  slaves ;  and  there  is  not  on  earth  a 
class  of  men  that  would  be  more  ready  to  shed  their  last  drop 
of  blood  in  opposition  to  such  an  attempt,  and  in  defence  of 
the  very  principles  which  are  set  at  naught  by  their  own 
laws  respecting  three  millions  of  human  beings — as  free,  by 
nature,  to  worship  God  in  the  manner  which  they  prefer,  as 
themselves. 

[d)  Slavery  interferes  with  the  rights  o^ property.  If  any 
principle  is  clear,  not  only  from  reason,  but  from  the  Bible,  it 
is,  that  a  man  has  a  right  to  the  avails  of  his  own  labour. 
This  is  founded  on  the  right  which  he  has  to  himself,  and  of 
course  to  all  that  he  himself  can  honestly  earn.  If  any  por- 
tion of  this  is  taken  away  by  taxes  for  the  support  of  govern- 
ment, it  is  not  on  the  principle  that  another  man,  though  at 
the  head  of  the  government  and  ruling  over  him,  has  any 
right  to  it,  but  it  is,  that  he  himself  is  represented  in  that 
government;  and  that  it  is,  to  all  practical  purposes,  an  ap- 
propriation by  himself,  of  his  own  property,  to  make  himself, 
his  family,  and  the  remainder  of  his  property  more  secure. 
It  is  not  taken  from  him  ;  it  is  committed  by  him  to  others, 
to  be  employed  in  his  own  service,  and  in  the  protection 
which  he  receives  there  is  a  full  equivalent  for  all  that  is  ren- 
dered to  the  government.  He  is  still  regarded  as  the  lawful 
owner,  and  as  having  a  right  to  all  the  avails  of  his  own  in- 
dustry, until  it  is  thus  surrendered  to  other  hands. 

This  right,  while  it  enters  into  all  our  notions  of  hberty, 
and  while  the  denial  of  it  led  to  all  the  sacrifices  which 
secured  American  Independence,  is  abundantly  recognised  in 
the  Bible.      An  attempt  to  prove  it  is  scarcely  necessary ; 


SCRIPTITIAL    VIKWS    OF    SI^WKRY.  353 

but  the  followincf  passages  sliow  what  are  the  current  state- 
ments of  the  Scriptures  on  the  subject:  "Wherefore  I  per- 
ceive that  there  is  nothing  better  than  that  a  man  should 
rejoice  in  his  own  works  ;  for  that  is  his  portion :  for  who 
shall  bring  him  to  see  what  shall  be  after  him."  Eccl.  iii.  22. 
*♦  Behold  that  which  I  have  seen  :  it  is  good  and  comely  for 
one  to  eat  and  to  drink,  and  to  enjoy  the  good  of  all  his  labour 
that  he  taketh  under  the  sun  all  the  days  of  his  life,  which 
God  o^ivelh  him:  for  that  is  his  portion."  Eccl.  v.  18. 
*'  Bt  hold  the  hire  of  the  labourers  who  have  reaped  down 
your  fields,  which  is  of  you  ke}>t  back  by  fraud,  crieth  ;  and 
the  cries  oP^hem  which  have  reaped  are  enter<xl  into  the  ears 
of  the  Lord  of  Sabaoth."  James  v.  4.  "Thou  shalt  not 
defraud  thy  neighbour,  neither  rob  him  ;  the  wages  of  him 
that  is  hired  shall  not  abide  with  thee  all  night  until  the 
morning."  Lev.  xix.  13.  *' Rob  not  the  poor  because  he  is 
poor;  neither  oppress  the  afilicted  in  the  gate  :  for  the  Lord 
will  plead  their  cause,  and  spoil  the  soul  of  those  that  spoiled 
them."  Prov.  xxii.  22,  23.  "For  I  the  Lord  love  judgment,  I 
hate  robbery  for  burnt-ofiering."  Isa.  Ixi.  8.  "The  people 
of  the  land  have  used  oppression,  and  exercised  robbery,  and 
have  vexed  the  poor  and  needy  ;  yea  they  have  oppressed 
the  stranger  wrongfully.  And  1  sought  for  a  man  among 
them  that  should  make  up  the  hedge,  and  stand  in  the  gap 
before  me  in  the  land,  that  I  should  not  destroy  it :  but  I 
found  none.  Then-fore  have  I  poured  out  mine  indignation 
upon  them  ;  I  have  consumed  them  with  the  fire  of  my  wrath  ; 
their  own  way  have  I  recompensed  upon  their  heads,  saith 
the  Lord  God."  Ezek.  xxii.  29 — :n.  "Wo  unto  him  that 
buildeih  his  house  by  unrighteousness,  and  his  chambers  by 
wrong ;  thcU  useth  his  neighbour's  service  ivithout  wageSy 
and  giveth  him  not  for  his  work.''     Jer.  xxii.  13. 

Now  it  is  unnecessary  to  attempt  to  prove,  that  this  essen- 
tial principle  of  the  right  of  property  is  wholly  at  variance 
with  slavery  as  it  exists  in  this  land,  and  indeed  with  all  pro- 
per notions  of  its  nature,  wherever  it  exists.     It  is  a  fuuda- 

30* 


354  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

mental  doctrine  in  the  idea  of  slaver}'-,  that  the  slave  can  be 
the  legal  owner  of  no  property;  can  have  no  right  to  the  avails 
of  his  own  labour.  This  has  been  abundantly  demonstrated 
in  the  quotations  which  have  been  made  from  the  laws  of  the 
slaveholding  states.  The  slave  can  own  neither  farm,  nor 
house,  nor  ox,  nor  ass,  nor  any  thing  which  his  hands  can 
earn.  He  can  own  no  copyright  of  a  book,  and  claim  none 
of  the  avails  of  a  book.  He  can  buy  nothing,  and  can  sell 
nothing.  He  can  contract  no  debt  that  could  be  collected  of 
him ;  he  can  collect  no  wages  from  another  for  services  ren- 
dered ;  he  can  make  no  will  that  the  law  would  recognise  as 
valid.  There  is  even  no  little  memento  of  kindness,  which 
he  may  have  received  from  his  master  or  from  others,  which 
he  can  claim  as  his  own  :  there  is  no  such  token,  which  the 
master  mig-ht  not  legally  appropriate  to  himself.  The  slave 
has  no  right  to  any  portion  of  the  corn  or  the  cotton  which  his 
own  hands  have  raised  ;  nor  can  he  ever  look  on  a  tree,  a  rose- 
bush, or  a  flower,  and  say,  legally,  that  it  is  his  own. 

Now,  if  the  principles  of  the  Bible  on  the  subject  of  pro- 
perty are  permanent  principles,  it  is  clear  that  the  system  of 
slavery  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  word  of  God,  and  that  it 
is  not  the  intention  of  Christianity  to  perpetuate  the  system  in 
the  world.  The  fair  application  of  these  principles  would 
soon  bring  the  S3^stem  to  an  end.  Can  it  be  believed  that 
the  New  Testament  sanctions  the  power  of  making  void  the 
marriage  relation  ;  of  abrogating  the  authority  of  parents  ;  of 
nullifying  the  command  which  requires  children  to  obey  their 
parents ;  of  interfering  with  the  right  w^hich  every  man  has 
to  worship  God  according  to  his  own  views  of  duty  and  truth; 
and  of  appropriating  to  ourselves  entirely  the  avails  of  the 
labour  of  another  man  ?  Whatever  may  be  the  abstract  vie\vs 
which  any  man  may  defend  on  the  subject  of  human  rights, 
yet  no  one  can  seriously  maintain — I  know  not  that  any  one 
has  ever  attempted  to  maintain — that  these  things  are  sanc- 
tioned by  the  New  Testament.  And  yet,  they  are  essential 
to  the  system.     Slavery,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  355 

never  has  existed  wilhout  some  or  all  of  these  things  ;  it 
never  can. 

(3.)  The  gfospel,  and  the  Rihle  (roneraily,  prohibits,  in  the 
most  positive  manner,  many  things  which  are  always  found 
in  slaver}%  and  which  are  inseparable  from  it. 

Among  these  things  are  the  following: — 

(rt)  Stealing  a  man  is  forbidden  ;  and  the  precepts  of  the 
Bible  on  that  subject  ore  necenHarily  violated  by  slavery. 
This,  as  we  have  seen,  was  prohibited,  in  the  most  solemn 
manner,  in  the  Old  Testament :  "And  he  that  stealeth  a  man, 
and  selleth  him,  or  if  he  be  found  in  his  hand,  he  shall  surely 
be  put  to  death."  Ex.  xxi.  IB.  It  is  forbidden,  in  an  equally 
positive  manner,  in  the  New  Testament :  "The  law  is  made 
for  menstealers'^ — aiSfiar<o8i(ftaU.  1  Tim.  i.  9,  10.  The 
meaning  of  this  word  has  been  before  considered.  It  needs 
only  to  be  remarked  here,  that  the  essential  idea  of  the  term 
is,  that  of  cojiverting;  a  freeman  into  a  slave.  Thus  Passow 
defines  the  word  or6pa;to6K3|u6{ — andrapodismos — Verwand- 
Jung  eines  freyen  Mannes  in  einen  Sklaven,  besonders  durch 
AVrkauf,  Unterjochung,  u.  s.  w.  : — a  changins^  of  a  freeman 
into  a  slave,  especially  by  traffic,  subjection,  ^-c.  Now, some- 
how  this  *  conversion  of  a  freeman  into  a  slave' — the  sin  for- 
bidden in  the  passage  before  us — occurs  essentially  in  the 
case  of  every  one  who  ever  becomes  a  slave;  for  it  is  a  truth 
no  less  in  accordance  with  the  Bible,  and  with  all  the  princi- 
ples of  natural  religion,  than  with  the  declaration  of  American 
Independence,  "that  all  men  are  created  equal;  that  they  are 
endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights; 
that  among  these  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happi- 
ness." This  was  also  the  doctrine  of  the  Koman  civil  law  : 
Quod  ad  jus  naturale  atlinet,  omncs  homines  seqitales  sunt. 
Digesta,  i.  1<),  32. 

If  this  right  is  ever  disturbed,  so  as  to  deprive  a  human 
beinc:  of  the  liberty  with  which  he  was  created,  it  must  be  by 
some  power  coming  in  between  his  creation,  contemplated  as 
the  work  of  God,  and  bis  future  condition  in  fact;  practically 


V 


356  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

and  really  '  converting  the  freeman  to  a  slave,'  and  constituting 
the  very  offence  forbidden  in  the  passage  before  us.  He  was 
made  a  freeman  ;  he  is  held  a  slave.  The  one  is  the  act  of 
God ;  the  other  is  the  act  of  man.  Now  this  process  of  con- 
verting a  freeman  to  a  slave  may  be  either  by  the  conquests 
of  war,  or  by  kidnapping,  or  by  the  laws  of  a  land.  It  may 
be  either  the  act  of  an  individual  or  of  a  community  ;  an  act 
of  direct  and  immediate  wrong  by  an  individual,  or  an  effect 
of  the  legalized  workings  of  a  system. 

It  is  clear,  however,  that  neither  one  method  nor  the  other 
can  make  it  right,  or  reconcile  it  with  the  statement  of  Paul 
in  1  Tim.  i.  9,  10.  The  mere  act  of  a  legislature  in  legalizing 
the  conversion,  or  sanctioning  the  original  robbery,  does  not 
make  the  prohibitions  here  inapplicable  to  it,  or  make  it  cease 
to  be  a  violation  of  the  law  of  God;  nor  is  the  case  changed 
by  the  fact  that  the  original  perpetrator  of  the  wrong  is  dead, 
and  that  it  is  now  a  part  of  an  organized  S3^stem.  Somewhere, 
the  wrong  is  done  to  the  man  whom  God  made  free;  to  each 
individual  who  is  made  a  slave  :  and  in  every  instance,  either 
some  individual,  or  the  society  which  sanctions  and  legalizes 
the  wrong,  is  responsible.  If  the  inhabitants  of  Georgia,  liv- 
ing on  the  borders  of  the  Cherokee  country,  had  been  long  in 
the  habit  of  committing  depredations  on  the  farms  of  the  Chero- 
kees,  and  carrying  off' their  horses,  it  is  clear  that  there  would 
be  a  wrong  done  in  the  case  of  every  horse  that  was  stolen. 
The  wrong  would  not  be  removed,  if  the  legislature  of  Georgia 
at  the  time  had  authorized  the  outracre,  or  should  leoralize  it 
afterward  ;  nor  would  any  lapse  of  time,  or  any  number  of  legal 
enactments,  make  the  act  of  depredation  right.  Somewhere, 
either  in  the  indiv^idual  or  in  the  society,  the  guilt  of  the  wrong 
would  remain,  nor  could  it  ever  be  removed  by  any  legal  en- 
actments. The  case  might  be  made  still  stronger,  though  on 
the  same  principle,  by  a  reference  to  property  of  a  different 
kind.  When  Napoleon  invaded  Italy,  a  large  portion  of  the 
celebrated  paintings  and  statues  of  that  land  were  plundered 
and  removed  to  Paris.     On  the  supposition  that  the  invader 


srnirTUiL\L  vir.ws  of  slavkry.  357 

had  no  right  himself  to  rob  churches  and  palaces  ;  that  he 
violated  every  principle  of  common  justice,  and  every  senti- 
ment of  what  the  Earl  of  Chatham  calls  'honourable  war,'  it 
is  clear  that  no  lapse  of  time,  no  amount  of  legal  enactments, 
and  no  number  of  transfers  of  the  jiroperty  by  sale  or  by  be- 
quest, could  ever  convey  a  moral  right  to  those  works  of  art. 
The  claim  of  one  robber  might  be  legally  good  against  another, 
or  the  claim  of  one  French  proprietor  might  be  legally  good 
against  another  inhabitant  of  France,  or  an  inhabitant  of  Rus- 
sia or  England,  but  it  could  never  be  morally  good  against  the 
Italian  church  or  convent  that  had  been  plundered.  Some- 
where, in  spite  of  all  the  forms  of  law,  the  wrons^  is  perpe- 
tuated and  extended,  nor  can  it  ever  be  obliterated  but  by  a 
restoration.  It  may  be  that  one  who  inherited  one  of  these 
paintings  may  have  been  guilty  of  no  wrong  in  becoming  the 
recognised  legal  owner — for  he  had  no  agency  in  it ;  it  may 
be  that  he  could  hold  it  against  another  claimant — a  pretended 
heir  at  law  of  the  estate  ;  it  may  be  that  a  restoration  to  the 
original  owner  might  be  for  a  time  impracticable  ;  but  none  of 
these  things  sanction  the  original  wrong,  or  abolish  the  moral 
claim  of  the  original  owner. 

These  principles  are  still  more  clear,  in  the  case  of  stealing 
a  man — a  human  being — a  fellow-traveller  to  eternity.  The 
injury  is  greater  to  him,  and  to  every  one  descended  from  him, 
who,  in  virtue  of  an  unhappy  connection  with  him,  shall  be 
involved  in  the  wrong,  than  can  possibly  be  in  the  case 
of  a  horse  or  a  work  of  art.  The  guilt  of  converting  the 
freeman  to  a  slave  exists  somewhere  ;  and  if  in  any  case  it 
docs  not  rest  on  the  individual  who  becomes  an  involuntary 
inheritor  of  the  wrong,  it  rests  on  the  community  which  pro- 
vides for  this  by  its  laws.  The  thing  is  forbidden.  It  is  con- 
trary to  the  whole  spirit  of  the  New  Testament. 

(6)  Oppression  is  forbidden  ;  and  just  the  kind  of  oppres- 
sioji  which  alwai/s  enters  into  the  idea  of  slavery.  "  For 
the  oppression  of  the  poor,  for  the  sighing  of  the  needy,  now 
will  I  arise,  saith  the  Lord  ;  I  will  set  him  in  safety  from  him 


358  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

that  puffeth  at  him."  Ps.  xii.  5.  "  He  shall  judge  the  poor 
of  the  people,  he  shall  save  the  children  of  the  needy,  and 
shall  break  in  pieces  the  oppressor.  For  he  shall  deliver  the 
needy  when  he  crieth  ;  the  poor  also,  and  him  that  hath  no 
helper.''  Ps.  Ixxii.  4,  12.  "  I  know  that  the  Lord  will  main- 
tain the  cause  of  the  afflicted,  and  the  right  of  the  poor."  Ps. 
cxl.  12.  "  What  mean  ye  that  ye  beat  my  people  to  pieces, 
and  grind  the  faces  of  the  poor  ?  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts."  Isa. 
iii.  15.  "  Wo  unto  them  that  decree  unrighteous  decrees,  and 
that  write  grievousness  which  they  have  prescribed  ;  to  turn 
aside  the  npedy  from  judgment,  and  to  take  away  the  right 
from  the  poor  of  my  people,  that  widows  may  be  their  prey, 
and  that  they  may  rob  the  fatherless.  And  what  will  ye  do 
in  the  day  of  visitation,  and  in  the  desolation  which  shall  come 
from  far  ?  To  whom  will  ye  flee  for  help  ?  And  where  will 
ye  leave  your  glory  ?"  Isa.  x.  1 — 3.  Comp.  also  Amos  viii. 
4—7;  Ex.  iii.  7—9;  Eccl.  v.  8;  Isa.  Lxi.  8;  Jer.  v.  2G; 
Ezek.  xxii.  12  ;  James  ii.  13,  v.  4  ;  Job  xxvii.  13  ;  Jer.  xxii. 
13,  xxxiv.  17. 

There  is  almost  nothing  which  is  more  frequently  adverted 
to  in  the  Bible,  than  oppression.  And  yet,  the  idea  of  oppres- 
sion  enters  into  the  very  conception  of  slavery,  and  is  im- 
bodied  in  all  the  laws  that  pertain  to  it.  Indeed,  if  it  were 
the  design  to  originate  a  system  of  laws  for  the  very  purpose 
of  oppression  ;  if  a  legislature  should  wish  to  frame  a  series  of 
enactments  which  should  accomplish  that  in  the  most  effectual 
manner,  the  slave  laws  of  this  country  would  be  the  very  ones 
which  would  be  needed  for  such  a  purpose.  Scarcely  any 
modification  would  be  necessary  to  accomplish  such  an  end; 
scarcely  a  new  element  of  cruelly  and  wrong  could  be  intro- 
duced into  these  laws.  Let  any  one  read  over  the  laws  of  the 
slave  states  as  I  have  quoted  them  in  a  former  part  of  this 
volume,  and  this  will  be  apparent  at  a  glance. 

It  is  clear,  also,  that  if  all  that  properly  comes  under  the 
name  of  oppression  were  removed  from  those  laws,  slavery, 
as  a  system,  would  soon  come  to  an  end.     There  might,  in- 


SCRIPTURAL    ^^E^VS    OF    SLAVERY.  359 

deed,  be  found  a  few  now  hold  as  slaves  who  are  in  such  cir- 
cumstances lliat  they  do  not  regard  their  condition  as  oppres- 
sive, and  who  would  prefer  to  remain  with  their  masters  rather 
than  at  once  to  be  set  at  liberty.  But  their  condition  would 
not  invalidate  the  truth  of  the  general  remark.  Slavery,  as  a 
system,  could  not  live  a  day,  if  there  were  not  in  it  the  elemen- 
tary idea  of  oppression  ;  and  if  so,  it  is  clear,  that  a  fair  appli- 
cation of  the  principles  of  the  Bible  would  soon  bring  it  to  an 
end  ;  that  is,  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  principles  of  the  Bible, 
and  therefore  wrong. 

(t)  Depriving  one  of  his  lairful  wageSj  is  forbidden  in 
the  Xew  Testament. — Such  a  withholding  of  the  proper  wages 
due  to  the  labourer  is  involved  in  the  very  idea  of  slavery,  and 
in  order  to  show  that  the  Christian  system  is  opposed  to  it» 
and  would  abolish  it,  it  is  necessary  to  show  that  the  applica- 
tion of  the  principles  laid  down  on  that  subject  in  the  New 
Testament  would  bring  the  system  to  an  end. 

This  point  has  already  been  partially  illustrated  under  a 
previous  specification,  in  showing  that  the  system  of  slavery 
interferes  with  the  essential  rights  of  property.  It  is  proper, 
however,  to  add  a  few  words  in  regard  to  this  specific  form 
of  the  evil,  in  order  to  show,  not  only  that  it  violates  the 
essential  rights  of  the  labourer,  by  denying  tb.at  the  slave  can 
be  the  owner  of  any  property  whatever,  but  that  it  furnishes 
no  such  compensation  for  labour  as  the  principles  of  the  New 
Testament  give  a  man  a  right  to  receive. 

Tlic  principles  of  the  Bible  on  the  subject  are  stated  in  the 
following  language:  "Behold  the  hire  of  the  labourers  who 
liave  reaped  down  your  fields,  wliich  is  of  you  kept  back  by 
fraud,  crieth ;  and  the  cries  of  them  which  have  reaped  are 
entered  into  the  ears  of  the  Lord  of  Sabaoth."  James  v.  4. 
"  And  I  will  come  near  you  to  judgment ;  and  I  will  be  a  swift 
witness  against  the  sorcerers,  and  against  the  adulterers, 
and  against  false  swearers,  and  against  those  tiiat  oppress 
the  hireling  in  his  wages,  the  widow,  and  the  fatherless,  and 
that  tuFQ  aside  the  stranger  from  the  right,  and  fear  not  me, 


360  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

saith  the  Lord  of  hosts."  Mat.  iii.  5.  "Wo  unto  him  that 
buildeth  his  house  by  unrighteousness,  and  his  chambers  by- 
wrong;  that  useth  his  neighbour's  service  without  wages, 
and  giveth  him  not  for  his  work."  Jer.  xxii.  13.  "The 
labourer  is  worthy  of  his  reward."  1  Tim.  v.  18.  "  The 
labourer  is  worthy  of  his  hire."     Luke  x.  7. 

In  all  these  passages  the  same  principles  essentially  are  laid 
down.  They  are  these :  (a)  that  where  labour  is  per- 
formed, or  service  rendered,  a  fair  equivalent  is  due  to  the 
labourer ;  (b)  that  he  to  whom  the  service  is  rendered  is  not 
to  withhold  that  fair  equivalent ;  (c)  that  we  are  not  to  3vail 
ourselves  of  the  forced  or  unrequited  labour  of  others.  He 
who  renders  the  service  is  to  receive  a  fair  equivalent;  that 
is,  he  is  to  receive  what  is  worth  as  much  to  him  as  the  labour 
is  ;  and  he  in  whose  behalf  the  service  is  rendered  is  to  bestow 
on  the  labourer  as  much  as  the  service  rendered  is  worth  to  him. 

Now,  it  is  not  true,  in  the  system  of  slavery  anywhere, 
that  it  is  contemplated  that  a  fair  equivalent  shall  be  ren- 
dered to  the  slave  for  the  service  which  he  performs.  It  is 
presumed,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  system,  that  the  master 
shall  receive  from  the  toil  of  the  individual  slave,  or  from 
his  slaves  collectively*  so  much  more  than  he  gives  to,them  for 
their  work,  as  to  be  sufficient  to  free  him  from  the  necessity 
of  toil,  and  to  enable  him,  so  far  as  that  is  concerned,  to  live 
in  indolence.  It  is  not  true  that  an  equivalent  is  paid  to  the 
slave.  What  he  receives  is  not  what  he  would  be  willing  to 
contract  to  do  the  work  for.  It  is  not  what  freemen  receive 
for  the  same  amount  of  work.  No  one  can  pretend  that  the 
coarse  raiment,  and  the  hard  fare,  and  the  rude  cottages,  and 
the  scanty  furniture,  and  the  implied  pledge  of  medical  attend- 
ance in  sickness,  and  of  support  in  old  age,  can  be  any 
proper  equivalent  for  the  service  which  a  slave  renders.  It  is 
not  what  any  freeman  would  contract  to  do  the  work  for.  If 
it  were  an  equivalent,  the  whole  system  would  be  unprofitable, 
and  must  soon  come  to  an  end. 

As  long,  therefore,  as  slavery  exists  in  any  community,  it 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  361 

is  a  standing  violation  of  these  precepts  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  an  iionest  apph'caiion  of  these  precepts  would  at 
once  bring  tlie  system  to  an  end.  Let  all  slaveholders  adopt 
the  principle  which  prevails  where  there  is  free  labour,  of 
giving  to  those  employed  a /caV  compensation  for  their  toil; 
an  honest  equivalent  for  their  work,  and  the  system  must  at 
once  cease.  It  follows,  therefore,  if  these  principles  are  cor- 
rect, that  all  that  is  received  by  the  master  above  such  an 
equivalent,  is  to  be  set  down  to  the  fact  that  the  master  has 
power,  and  'can  enforce  the  wrong  ;'  and  is  as  uiijuatlij  appro- 
priated to  himself  as  if  it  were  taken  by  robbery  in  any  other 
form,  from  the  earnings  of  another.  Why  is  it  more  justifia- 
ble than  any  other  mode  of  availing  ourselves  of  the  labour  of 
others  without  their  consent,  and  without  rendering  to  them  a 
fair  equivalent  ?  There  is  not  on  earth  any  other  condition  of 
things  to  which  the  passage  in  James  v.  4  is  so  applicable 
as  that  of  slavery  ;  and  if  the  rebuke  in  this  one  passage  of  the 
word  of  God  were  regarded,  slavery  would  at  once  come  to 
an  end.  Let  it  be  imagined  to  be  addressed  to  slaveholders, 
and  how  distinctly  does  it  seem  to  refer  to  every  feature  of 
injustice  and  wrong  in  the  system.  "  The  hire  of  the  labourers 
which  fiave  reaped  down  your  fields,  y^hich  is  of  you  kept 
back  by  fraud,  crieth  ;  and  the  cries  of  them  which  have 
reaped,  are  entered  into  the  ears  of  the  Lord  of  Sabaoth.'^ 

(d)  The  v)ithholding  of  instruction  is  forbidden  in  the 
New  Testament.  Nothing  is  more  definite  in  the  Bible,  or 
more  in  accordance  with  all  our  views  of  what  is  proper  and 
right,  than  the  declarations  that  all  men  have  a  clear  right  to 
know  the  truth  ;  to  receive  instruction,  to  have  free  access  to 
the  oracles  of  God.  Luke  xi.  52:  "  Wo  unto  you,  lawyers  ! 
for  ye  have  taken  away  the  key  of  knowledge:  ye  entered 
not  in  yourselves,  and  them  that  were  entering  in,  ye  hindered." 
John  V.  39:  "Search  the  Scriptures;  for  in  them  ye  think 
ye  have  eternal  life,  and  they  are  they  which  testify  of  me." 
Prov.  xix.  2:  "That  the  soul  be  without  knowledge,  it  is 
not  good." 

31 


362  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

The  precepts  in  the  Bible  which  speak  of  the  value  of 
knowledge,  and  of  the  obligation  to  search  for  the  truth,  apply- 
to  all  men.  It  is  everywhere  supposed  that  all  have  a  right 
to  the  privilege  of  obtaining  the  knowledge  of  God ;  and, in  the 
laws  of  the  Mosaic  economy,  we  have  seen  the  solicitude 
which  was  manifested  that  all  persons  in  the  Hebrew  com- 
monwealth should  have  the  benefits  of  religious  instruction. 

Yet  the  laws  of  the  slave  states  in  this  Union  are  a  direct 
violation  of  all  these  precepts,  so  far  as  slaves  are  concerned. 
It  is  not  contemplated  that  they  shall  have  sufficient  knowledge 
even  to  read  the  Bible.  There  are  numerous  laws  which  are 
enacted  with  the  express  design  that  they  shall  not  have  that 
knowledge.  Those  laws  have  been  enacted  on  the  principle 
that  they  are  necessary  to  perpetuate  the  system ;  that  there 
is  no  other  way  of  preservin'g  the  slaves  in  subordination  ; 
that  were  they  to  allow  them  to  be  acquainted  with  the  Bible,  it 
would  make  them  restless  and  dissatisfied,  and  would  tend  to 
the  ultimate  subversion  of  the  whole  system.  It  is  understood 
everywhere  in  the  slaveholding  states  that  nothing  would  be 
more  fatal  to  the  existence  of  slavery  there,  than  to  establish  a 
system  of  common-school  instruction  ;  and  that  the  whole  insti- 
tution Avould  be  perilled  if  all  the  slaves  were  taught- to  read 
the  Bible.  It  would  be  impossible  to  press  through  a  single 
legislature  of  the  slaveholding  states  an  act  authorizing 
the  free  instruction  of  all  the  slaves  to  such  an  extent  that 
they  might  be  able  to  read  the  word  of  God  ;  much  less  to 
institute  a  system  of  common-school  instruction  that  should 
embrace  all  the  slaves.  Even  the  efforts  which  are  made  by 
not  a  few  worthy  philanthropists,  of  a  recent  date,  in  the  South, 
to  benefit  the  slaves  by  giving  them  instruction,  contemplate 
only  oral  instruction;*  and  the  experiment  has  been  under- 
taken— an  experiment  which  cannot  but  be  destined  to  certain 
failure  in  the  end,  benevolent  and  well-meant  though  it  be — to 
see  whether  this  mode  of  instruction  can  be  made  to  answer 

*  See  the  Reports  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jones. 


SCIUPTL'RAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVLRY.  363 

the  purpose  of  ilic  plan  which  God  has  adopted,  and  which 
he  has  rovoaled  as  the  rip^ht  of  every  human  be inir,  in  the 
sense  that  no  one  can  deprive  him  of  it,  and  as  the  only  thing 
adapted  to  meet  the  wants  of  the  human  soul — the  ability  to 
rcuil  the  Bible,  and  the  unrestricted  riir/U  to  do  it. 

The  laws  prohibiting  the  instruction  of  the  slaves  are  essential 
to  slavery.  Slaveholding  legislators  believe,  that  if  those  laws 
should  be  repealed,  the  system  could  not  be  perixjtuated.  In 
this  opinion  every  intelligent  person  must  unite  with  them. 
Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  this  ;  there  is  no  point  on  which 
less  doubt  can  be  entertained. 

But  if  this  be  so,  then  two  things  follow  also,  with  entire 
clearness,  (a.)  One  is,  that  the  essential  laws  in  the  slave- 
slates  are  opposed  to  the  Bible  on  this  point ;  or  in  other  words, 
the  Bible  is  essentially  opposed  to  slavery.  That  is,  laws  are 
necessary  to  support  the  system,  which  are  a  direct  violation 
of  the  principles  of  the  word  of  God. 

{b.)  The  second  thing  is,  that  the  framers  of  those  laws,  and 
the  advocates  of  slavery,  have  no  real  belief  that  the  system 
of  slavery  is  sanctioned  by  the  word  of  God.  If  they  had, 
the  very  best  thing  which  they  could  do,  would  be  forthwith 
to  teach  all  their  slaves  to  read  the  Bible.  If  this  system  is 
in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures  ;  if  it  is  clear  that  it  is  meant 
that  it  shall  be  perpetuated  ;  if  the  relation  of  master  and  slave 
is  one  that  is  recognised  as  a  desirable  one,  and  one  that  is  to 
be  continued,  then  the  Bible  is  the  very  book  to  put  into  the 
hands  of  the  slaves,  and  then  the  master  is  doing  both  himself 
and  the  slave  a  great  wrong  that  he  does  not  do  it.  For  the 
slave  often  feels  that  his  condition  is  a  hard  one.  lie  often 
feels  that,  being  a  human  being,  he  has  a  right  to  freedom. 
He  is  chafed,  and  discontented,  and  dissatisfied  with  his  con- 
dition. He  often  feels — he  cannot  help  it,  with  the  measure 
of  light  which  he  has — that  God  made  him  fur  higher  ends; 
for  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  freedom.  His  spirit  is 
restless  and  disturbed,  and  he  is  in  constant  danger  of  being 
tempted  to  take  measures  to  burst  his  chains,  and  to  enjoy  the 


364  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

sweets  of  liberty.  Now,  if  the  Bible  is  friendly  to  slavery ; 
if  it  is  wholly  opposed  to  all  efforts  to  produce  universal 
emancipation ;  if  it  never  speaks  of  slavery  £is  sinful,  then 
the  best  thing  that  can  be  done  to  calm  down  the  restless 
feelings  of  the  slave,  is,  to  put  this  book  into  his  hands,  and 
let  him  see  what  is  the  will  of  God  m  the  case ;  to  bring  the 
sanctions  of  religion  on  the  side  of  the  master,  and  to  let  the 
slave  see  that  he  is  only  obeying  the  injunctions  of  his  Maker. 
One  of  the  best  methods  of  calming-  down  the  rebellious  feelinsrs 
of  those  who  are  afflicted  by  the  loss  of  health,  property,  or 
friends,  is  to  put  the  Bible  in  their  hands,  and  let  them  see 
that  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  his  people  should  be  tried. 
Nothing  does  so  much  to  still  the  murmurs  of  a  troubled  soul, 
and  to  produce  peace,  as  to  know  that  God  has  appointed 
these  trials,  and  that  in  obedience  to  his  will  they  should  be 
patiently  borne.  So,  if  slavery  be  countenanced  in  the  Bible, 
and  it  is  there  regarded  as  an  institution  having  the  divine 
approbation,  nothing  would  do  so  much  to  soothe  every  mur- 
muring feeling ;  to  produce  universal  contentment;  to  silence 
every  complaint  against  the  master,  and  to  make  the  slave 
happy,  as  to  instruct  him  so  that  he  could  read  the  Bible,  and 
see  all  this  with  his  own  eyes.  Masters  of  slaves  are  doing 
themselves  great  wrong,  by  leaving  the  suspicion  on  their 
minds,  that  something  would  be  found  in  the  Bible  which 
would  lead  them  to  doubt  whether  God  designed  that  they 
should  be  held  in  that  condition.  The  '  schoolmaster*  would 
thus  do  a  good  service  if  he  were  '  abroad'  all  over  the  South, 
l^he  Bible  Society  should  be  heartily  countenanced  by  the 
masters  and  legislators  there,  and  would  deserve  their  warmest 
thanks  if  it  should  follow  in  the  steps  of  the  schoolmaster,  and 
put  a  Bible  into  the  hands  of  every  murmuring  and  dissatisfied 
slave,  and  into  the  hands  of  all  the  children  there  born  to  be 
slaves.  Nothing  could  do  so  much  to  prevent  trouble — and 
especially  to  prevent  the  propensity  now  so  prevalent  with 
them  to  escape  to  the  North. 

(4.)  It  is  conceded  that  the  gospel,  if  fairly  applied,  would 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OK    SLAVLRY.  365 

remove  slavery  from  tlio  world  :  it  is  therefore  wrong.     This 
i:5  adiuitted  in  the  Princeton  BibHcal  Repertor}'. 

"It  is  also  evident,  that  acting  in  accordance  with  these 
principles  would  so  soon  improve  the  condition  of  the  slaves, 
would  make  them  intelligent,  moral,  and  religious,  and  thus 
work  out  to  the  benefit  of  all  concerned,  and  the  removal  of  the 
institution.  For  slavery,  like  despotism,  supposes  the  actual 
inferiority  and  consequent  dependence  of  those  held  in  sub- 
jection. Neither  can  be  permanent.  Both  may  be  prolonged 
by  keeping  the  subject  class  degraded,  that  is,  by  committing 
sin  on  a  large  scale,  which  is  only  to  treasure  up  wrath  for 
the  day  of  wrath.  It  is  only  the  antagonist  fanaticism  of  a 
fragment  of  the  South,  which  maintains  the  doctrine  that 
slavery  is  in  itself  a  good  thing,  and  ought  to  be  perpetuated. 
It  cannot  by  possibility  be  perpetuated." 

The  same  sentiments  are  expressed  in  the  Princeton  Re- 
pertory for  1836,  pp.  302,  304.  This  same  concession  would 
be  made  by  most  of  those  who  suppose  that  slavery  was 
tolerated  in  the  church  by  the  apostles,  and  who  are  most 
oflended  at  its  ever  being  denominated  a  sin.  Even  Dr.  Fuller, 
the  ablest  defender  of  the  institution  of  slavery  of  modern  times, 
candidly  makes  the  following  concession:  "If  you  had  as- 
serted," says  he,  addressing  Dr.  Wayland,  "the  great  danger 
of  confiding  such  irresponsible  power  in  the  hands  o(  any  man^ 
I  should  at  once  have  assented.  There  is  quite  enough  abuse 
of  this  authority  to  make  me  regret  its  general  existence^ 
Again  he  says,  "  You  must  already  have  perceived,  that, 
speaking  abstractly  of  slavery,  I  do  not  consider  its  perpetu- 
ation proper,  even  if  it  ivere  possible.  Nor  let  any  one  ask, 
why  not  perpetuate  it  if  it  be  not  a  sin  ?  The  Bible  informs 
us  what  man  is,  and,  among  such  beings,  irresponsible  po?a€r 
is  a  trust  too  easily  and  toofrequenlh/  abused.''  *  It  is  evident 
from  these  passages,  that  even  this  distincruished  defender  of 
slavery,  as  a  scriptural  institution,  would  not  re^^ard  it  as  de- 

•  Fuller  and  Wayland  on  Slavery,  p.  157. 
31- 


366  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

sirable  or  'proper*  that  it  should  be  perpetuated;  that  he 
*  regrets'  the  general  existence  of  the  institution  ;  and  that  he 
regards  its  perpetuation  as  'impossible.'  Even  Dr.  Fuller, 
therefore,  must  suppose,  that  a  fair  application  of  the  princi- 
ples of  the  Bible  would  remove  the  system  ultimately  from 
the  Avorld,  since  he  would  rely  on  nothing  to  correct  what 
is  evil  in  man,  or  permanently  to  modify  society,  but  the  in- 
fluence of  religion. 

I  have  myself  repeatedly  conversed  with  intelligent  gentle- 
men of  the  slaveholding  states  on  the  subject,  and  I  have  never 
seen  one  who  did  not  admit  that  the  gospel  would  ultimately 
remove  slavery  entirely.  They  have,  indeed,  been  opposed 
to  violent  measures — to  denunciation,  to  harsh  words,  to  a 
disorganizing  spirit,  and  to  making  the  mere  fact  of  sustaining 
the  relation  of  a  master  a  test  of  admission  to  the  church  or  a 
ground  of  excommunication  from  it — as  in  fact  most  of  the 
opponents  of  slavery  at  the  North  are  ;  they  have  in  general 
maintained  that  the  North  had  no  right  to  intermeddle  with  it, 
and  that  it  pertained  wholly  to  the  states  where  the  institution 
exists ;  they  have  insisted  that  it  is  not  proper  for  ecclesias- 
tical bodies  to  interfere  with  the  subject,  even  by  bearing 
testimony  against  il;  but  they  have  conceded  that  the  gospel, 
by  its  mild  and  gentle  influence,  would  ultimately  abolish  the 
system.  It  may  be  set  down  as  the  undoubted  belief  of  the 
great  mass  of  private  Christians,  and  Christian  ministers  at 
the  South,  that  the  fair  effect  of  the  gospel,  if  applied  in  a 
proper  manner,  would  be  hrst  to  meliorate  the  condition  of  the 
slave,  and  ultimately  to  effect  his  entire  emancipation.  The 
concession  would  be  made,  in  accordance  with  the  views  in 
the  Princeton  Repertory,  that  "  the  consequence  of  acting  on 
the  principles  of  the  gospel,  of  following  the  example  and 
obeying  the  precepts  of  Christ,  would  be  the  gradual  eleva- 
tion of  the  slaves  in  intelligence,  virtue,  and  wealth  ;  the 
peaceable  and  speedy  extinction  of  slavery ;  the  improvement 
in  general  prosperity  of  all  classes  of  society,  and  the  con- 
sequent increase  in  the  sum  of  human  happiness  and  vir- 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  367 

tue.'**  Most  persons  alto  would  accord  with  the  opinion  so  em- 
phatically expressed  in  the  same  work,  that,  "The  South  has  to 
choose  between  emancipation  h}/  the  siienl  and  holy  iujli(nice 
of  the  gospel,  securing  the  elevation  of  the  slaves  to  the  stature 
and  character  of  freemen,  or  to  abide  the  issue  of  a  long  con- 
tinued conflict  with  the  laws  of  God.'' — p.  1501. 

These  views,  of  what  the  tendency  of  the  gospel  would  do  if 
fairly  applied,  though  they  seem  to  be  entirely  contradictory  to 
the  opinion,  so  commonly  defended  at  the  South,  that  it  is  an  in- 
stitution sanctioned  by  the  Bible,  would  be  strengthened  by  a 
reference  to  the  effect  which  the  gospel,  when  first  promulgated, 
had  on  the  system  of  Roman  slaver}'.  It  has  been  commonly 
admitted,  even  by  the  advocates  of  the  opinion  that  slave- 
holding  is  not  necessarily  sinful,  that  the  effect  of  Christianity 
was  to  abolish  slavery  throughout  the  Roman  empire,  and 
the  manner  in  which  the  apostles  treated  it  has  been  supposed 
to  have  contributed  essentially  to  this  result. 

This  opinion,  so  greatly  conceded  to  be  true,  has,  however, 
been  recently  called  in  question,  by  Dr.  Fuller.  The  bearing 
of  the  concession  that  the  gospel  ever  did  abolish  slavery, 
could  not  but  be  seen  by  a  mind  as  clear  as  his.  He  there- 
fore expresses  himself  in  the  following  decisive  language  : 

" '  Slavery  was  at  last  abolished  throughout  the  whole 
Roman  empire  ;  and,  by  the  admission  of  all,  this  was  purely 
the  result  of  the  gospel.'  ^inswer.  Even  if  this  statement 
were  correct,  it  would  not  affect  our  discussion.  But  I  sub- 
mit to  you  that  it  is  inaccurate.  At  first,  myriads  of  slaves 
were  procured  by  war  ;  and  then  the  law  of  self-preservation 
occasioned  the  greatest  severities.  When  all  nations  had  be- 
come consolidated  into  one  empire,  this  source  of  supply  al- 
most ceased,  and,  masters  depending  on  the  natural  increase, 
slaves  became  more  valuable,  and  their  treatment  more  kind. 
Through  this  cause  the  laws  were  mitigated,  and,  in  the  reign 
of  the  Antonines,  edicts  were  published  protecting   slaves. 

•  Vol.  vm.  pp.  303,  304. 


368  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

This  was  in  the  second  century,  nor  can  this  change  be  at  all 
ascribed  to  the  gospel.  In  process  of  lime  Christianity  se- 
conded the  humane  working  of  this  system,  and  infused  its 
mild  and  benevolent  spirit  into  the  institution,  making  it  quite 
a  difTerent  thing.  But  slavery  never  was  abolished  through- 
out the  Roman  empire.  In  its  latest  days  there  were  millions 
of  slaves  in  the  empire,  and  a  living  writer  thinks,  that  their 
number  was  one  of  the  causes  which  conspired  in  producing 
that  most  astonishing  catastrophe,  the  subjugation  of  Rome  by 
the  Northern  barbarians."* 

It  becomes,  then,  an  important  inquiry  just  here,  what 
nms  the  effect  of  the  Christian  religion  on  the  system  of 
slavery  as  it  existed  in  the  Roman  empire  ?  Did  it  in  any 
way  modify  it,  or  tend  to  remove  it  ?  Was  it  understood  to 
lend  its  sanction  to  it,  so  that  it  was  regarded  as  a  good  and 
desirable  institution  ?  Was  it  understood  that  it  was  improper 
for  Christian  ministers  to  preach  on  the  subject,  or  synods  and 
councils  to  bear  their  testimony  against  it  ?  Are  there  any  facts 
to  show  that  its  tendency  was  to  promote  universal  emanci- 
pation, or  was  it  a  common  belief  in  the  Christian  church, 
that  it  was  to  be  perpetual  ?  If  all  Christian  ministers  and 
churches  should  act  now  on  what  was  understood  by  the 
early  Christians  to  be  the  proper  way  to  act,  would  the 
system  be  vindicated  and  perpetuated  ? 

In  reply  to  these  questions,  I  would  observe  that  the  facts 
in  the  case,  so  far  as  I  have  had  the  means  of  ascertaining 
them,  w^ere  these  : 

(a)  The  attention  of  Christians  was  early  turned  to  the 
subject  of  slavery,  and  to  the  evils  of  the  system.  In  the 
second  epistle  of  Ignatius  of  Antioch  to  Polycarp  of  Smyrna, 
are  the  following  words  :  "  Overlook  not  the  men  and  maid- 
servants ;  neither  let  them  be  puffed  up  ;  but  rather  let  them 
be  the  more  subject  to  the  glory  of  God,  that  they  may  ob- 
tain from  him  a  better  liberty.     Let  them  not  desire  to  be  set 

•  FuUcr  and  Wayland  on  Slavery,  pp.  330,221. 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF   SLAVKRY.  369 

free  at  public  cost,  that  they  be  not  slaves  to  tlu'ir  own  lusts.'* 
In  the  general  epistle  of  Barnabas,  ch.  14,  v.  15,  he  says, 
*' Thou  shah  not  be  bitter  in  thy  commands  towards  any  of 
thy  servants  that  trust  in  God  ;  lest  thou  chance  not  to  fear 
him  who  is  over  both ;  because  he  came  not  to  call  any  with 
respect  of  persons,  but  whomsoever  the  spirit  prepared."* 

(6)  Freedom,  under  the  influence  of  Christianity,  was  re- 
garded as  a  great  blessing,  and  the  desire  to  promote  it  led  to 
great  sacrifices  on  the  part  of  the  early  Christians.  The 
prevailing  views  of  the  early  Christians  may  be  rcgJirded 
as  expressed  in  the  following  passage  of  Clemens,  in  his 
epistle  to  the  Corinthians :  *'  We  have  known  many  among 
ourselves,  who  have  delivered  themselves  into  bonds  and 
slavery,  that  they  might  restore  others  to  their  liberty  ;  many 
who  have  hired  out  themselves  servants  unto  others,  that  by  their 
wages  they  might  feed  and  sustain  them  that  wanted."  The 
following  facts  also  will  show  with  what  feelings  the  early 
Christians  regarded  slavery.  "  Paulinus,  bishop  of  Nola,  ex- 
pended his  whole  estate,  and  then  sold  himself,  in  order  to 
accomplish  the  same  object.  Serapion  sold  himself  to  a  stage- 
player,  and  was  the  means  of  converting  him  and  his  family. 
Cyprian  sent  to  the  bishop  of  Numidia,  in  order  to  redeem 
some  captives,  2500  crowns.  Socrates,  the  historian,  says, 
that  after  the  Romans  had  taken  7000  Persian  captives,  Aca- 
cius,  bishop  of  Amida,  melted  the  gold  and  silver  plate  of  his 
church,  with  which  he  redeemed  the  captives.  Ambrose  of 
Milan  did  the  samt?  in  respect  to  the  furniture  of  his  church. 
It  was  the  only  case  in  which  the  imperial  constitutions  allowed 
plate  to  be  sold."t 

(c)  Emancipation  became  a  very  common  thing  in  the  early 
Christian  church,  and  was  attended  with  such  ceremonies  as 
to  show  that  it  was  regarded  as  a  matter  of  great  importance, 
and  ihaian  invaluable  privilege  was  thus  conferred  on  the  slave. 

•  Bib.  Repo«.  for  1835.  pp.  432,  433. 

I  IJib.  K<po8.  Oct.  1835,  p.  433. 


370  AN    INQUIRY    INTO   THE 

Thus,  when  a  slave  became,  with  the  consent  of  his  master,  a 
minister  of  the  gospel,  he  was,  by  the  very  act,  regarded  as 
emancipated.*  Emancipation  came  to  be  performed  in  the 
church,  attended  with  the  impressive  rites  of  religion,!  and 
every  thing  relating  to  it  vv-as  such  as  to  make  a  deep  impres- 
sion of  the  desirableness  of  restoration  to  freedom. 

(d)  Under  the  influence  of  Christianity,  the  laws  were 
greatly  modified,  and  many  of  the  former  oppressive  and 
harsh  treatments  came  to  an  end.  "  After  the  establishment 
of  Christianity,  under  Constantino,  slaves  partook  of  all  the 
ordinances  of  religion,  and  their  birth  was  no  impediment  to 
their  rising  to  the  highest  distinctions  of  the  priesthood.  At 
first,  indeed,  it  was  required  that  a  slave  should  be  enfran- 
chised before  ordination  ;  but  Justinian  declared  the  simple  con- 
sent of  the  master  to  be  sufficient.  Slaves  were  fully  protected 
in  the  exercise  of  worship,  and  to  a  certain  extent  in  the  ob- 
servance of  religious  festivals.  If  a  Christian  slave  fell  into 
the  hands  of  a  heathen  master,  the  latter  was  prohibited  from 
interfering  with  his  spiritual  concerns. "J 

(e)  It  is  admitted  that  the  tendency  of  things  under  the 
Roman  empire,  in  the  early  ages  of  Christianity,  was  to  bring 
slavery  to  an  end ;  and  that,  in  fact,  it  brought  it  almost  to  a 
termination.  Indeed,  such  were  the  facilities  for  manumission 
in  the  Roman  state,  and  such  numbers  Avere  actually  emanci- 
pated 6e/bre  Christianity  exerted  any  influence,  that  it  came  to 
be  necessary,  as  it  was  supposed,  to  restrict  the  right  of  emanci- 
pation, in  order  to  limit  the  dangerous  number  of  freedmen. 
Cicero  induces  us  to  believe,  that  good  slaves  usually  at- 
tained their  liberty  after  six  years'  service. §  It  was  usual  for 
a  wealthy  master  to  give  freedom  to  a  number  of  slaves  upon 
joyful  occasions.il     The  posthumous  vanity  of  masters   was 

*  Blair's  Slavery  amongst  the  Romans,  p.  168. 

I  Pliny  vii.  epist.  1 6. 

i  Bib.  Repos.  ut  supra,  p.  434.  §  Philip,  viii.  II. 

II  Ammi.  Marcell.  xxii.;  Libianus  Pancg.  Jul.  i.  21;  Cassio(LVarior.vi.ep.  I. 


SCRTPTL'RAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAM.RV.  371 

?Talifii>d  in  tlieir  fuiKTal  procession  beini^  swelled  by  a  crowd 
ol'  slaves,  to  whom  they  left  their  freedom  by  testament,  and 
hundreds  were  sometimes  thus  emancipated  at  once.*  The 
number  of  freedmen  found  in  Rome,  at  the  close  of  the  civil  wars, 
was  so  large  that  Augustus,  desirous  to  re-establish  the  relative 
importance  of  the  pure  civic  classes,  imposed  various  restric- 
tions on  their  manumission,  and  several  of  his  successors  acted 
on  similar  views.  The  Fusian  law,  passed  probably  under 
Augustus,  limited  the  proportion  of  slaves  that  a  proprietor 
might  emancipate  by  will,  and  fixed  one  hundred  as  the  maxi- 
munh  not  to  be  exceeded  by  any  single  owner. t  The  exact 
provision  of  this  law  was,  that  for  one  or  two  slaves,  there  was 
no  limitation  ;  but  between  the  numbers  three  and  ten,  one 
half  could  be  emancipated  ;  of  any  number  under  thirty,  a 
third;  under  a  hundred,  a  quarter;  under  five  hundred,  a 
fifth  part,  and  in  no  case  whatever  more  than  a  hundred. | 

This  tendency  to  emancipation  was  much  increased  by  the 
influence  of  Christianity.  The  feelings  of  the  early  Chris- 
tians, as  we  have  seen,  prompted  them  to  it ;  and  the  obstacles 
to  emancipation  were  finally  removed,  to  a  great  degree,  by 
Justinian. §  So  strong  was  the  tendency  to  emancipation,  so 
decisive  was  the  influence  of  Christianity,  that,  if  slavery  was 
never  entirely  brought  to  an  end  in  the  Roman  empire,  it  was 
nearly  so;  and  if  the  progress  of  things  had  not  been  inter- 
rupted by  the  invasion  of  the  Northern  hordes,  there  is  every 
reason  to  think  that  it  would  have  wholly  ceased  within  the 
limits  of  the  Roman  power.  Thus,  Gibbon  expressly  says, 
that  it  "  had  almost  ceased  under  the  peaceful  reign  of  the 
Roman  emperors."  (See  Fuller  on  Slavery,  p.  221.)  Thus 
Dr.  Fuller  himself  says  :  "  In  process  of  time  Christianity 
seconded  the  humane  working  of  this  system,  and  infused 
its  mild  and  benevolent  spirit  into  the  institution,  making  it 

•  Blair,  ut  supra,  p.  173.  -j  Ibid.  p.  174. 

i  Becker  on  Roman  Slavery,  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  Aug.  1845, 
p.  579.  §  Blair,  ut.  sup.  p.  174. 


372  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

quite  a  different  thing."— p.  220.  Thus  also,  Prof.  B.  B. 
Edwards*  says  :  "  The  spirit  of  the  Christian  religion  effected 
a  glorious  triumph  in  almost  every  part  of  the  imperial  domi- 
nions. There  was  no  instantaneous  abandonment  of  the  sys- 
tem of  servitude.  But  its  contrariety  to  the  precepts  of  the 
New  Testament  was  gradually  seen.  Clergymen  vindicated 
the  rights  of  the  oppressed.  The  codes  of  slave-law  were 
gradually  ameliorated,  till  finally  the  rescripts  of  Justinian 
nearly  accomplished  the  salutary  reform."  On  the  influence 
of  the  invasions  of  the  Goths  and  Vandals  in  checking  the 
progress  of  emancipation,  and  perpetuating  slavery,  the  whole 
of  the  article  just  referred  to  may  be  consulted  with  great  ad- 
vantage. It  is  evident,  that  whatever  influence  those  inva- 
sions had  in  perpetuating  slavery  should  be  regarded  as  coun- 
teracting the  tendency  of  the  Christian  religion. 

From  the  above  statements  in  regard  to  slavery  in  the 
Roman  empire  after  the  gospel  was  preached,  it  is  manifest 
that  slavery  was  considered  to  be  adverse  to  the  spirit  of  the 
gospel ;  that  the  early  Christians  were  willing  to  make  great 
sacrifices  to  impart  freedom  to  those  who  were  enslaved;  that 
emancipation  was  regarded  as  a  most  important  and  desirable 
thing ;  that  the  tendency  of  Christianity  was  to  meliorate  the 
laws  pertaining  to  slavery,  and  to  '  make  it  quite  a  diflferent 
thing  ;'  that  under  the  influence  of  Christianity  slavery  *  had 
almost  ceased'  in  the  Roman  empire  ;  and  that  there  is  every 
reason  to  suppose  that  it  would  have  ceased  entirely,  if  the 
progress  of  things  so  auspiciously  commenced  had  not  been 
arrested  by  the  incursions  of  the  Northern  barbarians. 

The  result  of  this  investigation  in  regard  to  Roman  slavery 
is,  therefore,  in  entire  accordance  with  the  statement  in  the 
Princeton  Repertory,  Ma/ /Ae/air  application  of  the  Christian 
religion  would  ultimately  bring  the  institution  to  an  end. 

But,  if  this  be  so,  it  is  a  legitimate  conclusion  that  slavery 
is  sinful,  and  that  the  gospel  does  not  contemplate  that  it  shall 

*  Bibl.  Repos.  Jan.  1836,  p.  441. 


SCRirmiAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVtUV.  373 

be  perpetuated  for  the  best  interests  of  society.  It  is  clear, 
that  the  most  ric^id  apphcation  of  the  principles  of  the  gospel 
will  destroy  nothing  that  is  good,  and  that  it  will  interfere  with 
no  desirable  relation  in  society.  It  makes  war  only  on  evil ; 
its  tendency  is  to  remove  only  that  which  is  sinful.  Regard- 
ing the  gospel  as  a  system  of  truth  revealed  from  heaven,  all 
that  is  necessary  to  prove  that  any  thing  is  wrong,  is  to  show 
that  the  fair  application  of  the  gospel  would  abolish  it.  It 
makes  no  difference  as  to  this  point,  whether  it  be  by  a 
gradual  process,  or  whether  it  would  do  it  immediately  ; 
whether  it  would  be  by  effecting  a  change  in  the  laws,  or  by 
acting  directly  on  the  individual  consciences  of  those  who  are 
guilty  of  the  wrong;  the  fact  that  the  gospel  would  abolish  its 
existence,  proves  that  it  is  wrong.  The  Christian  religion 
disturbs  nothing  that  is  good  ;  it  destroys  no  relation  which  it 
is  desirable  should  be  perpetuated  for  the  best  interests  of  man. 
All  the  arguments,  therefore,  in  the  Princeton  Repertory,  and 
elsewhere,  in  favour  of  slavery,  when  the  admission  is  made 
that  the  gospel  would  abolish  it,  are  grossly  inconsistent.  At 
one  moment  it  is  maintained  that  it  is  not  condemned  in  the 
Bible  ;  that  slavery  has  been  countenanced  in  all  ages  ;  that 
it  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  per  se  an  evil ;  that  it  is  wrong  for 
ecclesiastical  bodies  to  legislate  on  it;  that  slaves  may  be  held 
with  propriety  by  Christian  ministers  and  by  other  Christians  ; 
that  the  war  which  Christianity  makes  on  it  is  not  on  the 
system,  but  the  ♦  abuses  of  the  system' — the  unjust  and  oppres- 
sive laws  on  the  subject  ;*"  and  at  another,  it  is  admitted,  in 
the  clearest  manner,  that  the  fair  application  of  the  Christian 
religion  would  bring  the  system  '  speedily'  to  an  end, — as  if 
the  gospel  would  abolish  any  thing  that  is  good  and  right. 
If  Christianity  would  bring  it  to  an  end,  there  must  be  some 
reason  why  it  would  ;  and  the  only  reason  that  can  be 
assigned  as  drawn  from  the  nature  of  Christianity  is,  that 

•  Princeton  Repertory,  April,  1836,  pp.  302,303. 
3-2 


374  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

it  is  contrary  to  the  will  of  God,  and  a  thing  that  is  morally 
wrong. 

It  is  a  fair  conclusion,  therefore,  that  if  Christianity  would 
abolish  slavery,  it  is  sinful.  It  demonstrates  the  point  before 
us,  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  Bible,  and  cannot  be  defended 
from  the  word  of  God.  To  show  that  it  is  not  contrary  to  the 
Bible,  it  should  be  maintained  that,  under  the  fair  operation  of 
Christianity,  the  system  would  be  extended  and  perpetuated ; 
and  that  the  best  way  to  keep  it  up  on  the  earth  would  be  to 
promulgate  the  principles  of  the  Christian  religion  as  plainly 
and  as  extensively  as  possible.  There  are  few  men,  it  is  to 
be  presumed,  who  would  be  disposed  to  take  that  ground. 

The  force  of  the  argument  here  referred  to  may  be  seen  by 
applying  it  to  two  classes  of  objects. 

(«)  There  are  things,  indubitably,  which  the  application  of 
Christianity  would  bring  to  an  end,  and  which,  wherever  it 
has  prevailed,  have  been  abohshed.  Such,  for  example,  are 
polygamy,  gladiatorial  shows,  intemperance,  concubinage, 
profaneness,  piracy,  highway  robbery,  duelling,  fraud,  licen- 
tiousness of  manners.  Christianity  has  brought  them  to  an 
end,  because  they  are  wrong;  and  the  fact  that  it  has  done  so, 
proves  that  they  are  wrong.  If  it  would  also  abolish  slavery, 
would  it  not  prove  that  it  is  to  be  classed  with  the  same  evils 
as  those  just  referred  to  ?  Is  it  the  tendency  of  the  system  to 
abolish  alike  the  evil  and  the  good  ?  Is  it  '  a  fountain  which 
at  the  same  place  sends  forth  sweet  water  and  bitter?' — 
James  iii.  11. 

{b)  There  are  things  which  it  would  not  abolish  ;  which  it 
has  no  tendency  to  abolish,  but  which  it  only  confirms  in  their 
influence.  Such  are  the  relations  of  the  marriage  covenant ; 
of  parent  and  child ;  of  brothers  and  sisters  ;  of  neighbours  and 
friends.  The  most  rigid  application  of  the  principles  of  Christi- 
anity would  do  nothing  to  abolish  the  relations  of  husband  and 
wife  in  a  community,  or  those  of  parent  and  child.  The 
Christian  system  would  only  perpetuate  and  do  honour  to 
those  relations  ;  nor  is  it  possible  to  conceive  that  the  time  will 


SCRIPTURAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAM.RY.  375 

ever  come,  under  the  application  of  Christianity,  when  they 
will  cease  in  the  world.  Does  not  this  prove  that  they  have 
the  sanction  of  God,  and  are  desic^ned  to  be  perpetualid  for 
the  good  of  man  ?  And  if  the  relation  of  master  and  slave  had 
tH^ually  the  sanction  of  God,  would  not  the  fair  application  of 
Clirisiianity  be  to  extend  and  perpetuate  it  also  ?  Why  should 
it  perpetuate  the  one  and  abolish  the  other? 

These  considerations  seem  to  me  to  be  conclusive  proof  that 
Christianity  was  not  designed  to  extend  and  perpetuate  slaver}', 
but  that  the  spirit  of  the  Christian  religion  is  against  it ;  and 
that  the  fair  application  of  the  Christian  religion  would  re- 
move it  from  the  world,  because  i7  is  an  evil,  and  is  displeasing 
to  God. 


376  AN    INQUIRY   INTO   THE 


CONCLUSION. 

I  HAVE  thus  gone  through  with  the  subject  which  I  pro- 
posed to  examine — the  scriptural  argument  on  the  subject 
of  slavery.  There  is  another  line  of  argument  on  the  sub- 
ject which  might  be  pursued,  in  order  to  confirm  the  views 
which  have  been  taken,  derived  from  the  vjorking  of  the  sys- 
tem. This  would  consist  of  an  examination  of  the  bearing  of 
the  system  on  the  various  questions  pertaining  to  agricuhure, 
commerce,  arts,  manufactures,  education,  morals,  and  poHtical 
prosperity.  It  would  be  easy,  on  these  points,  to  show  that 
there  is  not  a  valuable  interest  of  society  which  does  not  suf- 
fer from  the  influence  of  slavery,  and  that  our  own  country,  in 
the  comparative  increase  and  prosperity  of  the  free  and  slave 
states,  furnishes  abundant  illustration  of  this  truth.  This 
course  of  argument  would  be  proper,  in  accordance  with  the 
object  which  I  proposed,  only  as  it  would  be  a  confirmation 
of  the  views  taken  in  interpreting  the  Bible.  If  the  teachings 
of  the  Bible  are  against  the  system ;  if  in  the  word  of  God  it 
is  not  regarded  as  a  good  and  desirable  institution ;  if  it 
appears  from  the  Scriptures  that  it  was  not  his  intention  that 
it  should  be  perpetuated  ;  and  if  the  fair  apphcation  of  the 
Christian  principles  would  be  to  abolish  it,  it  may  be  pre- 
sumed that  these  views  would  find  confirmation  in  the  events 
of  his  Providence  ;  and  that  in  respect  to  those  things  on  which 
the  best  interests  of  society  depend,  and  which  will  enter  into 
its  highest  condition,  those  portions  of  the  world  where  slavery 
prevails  will  be  found  to  be  falling  behind  those  which  are 
free  from  it.     This  argument  might  be  pursued  at  length, 


SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVERY.  377 

and  with  the  clearest  demonslration.  With  certain  classes 
of  minds  it  would  have  more  force  than  any  thing  which 
1  have  advanced.  But  it  does  not  fall  directly  within 
my  design  in  ascertaining  the  true  sense  of  the  Bible  on  the 
subject. 

I  have  not  thought  it  necessary  for  me,  in  this  argument,  to 
go  into  any  examination  of  the  question  in  what  way  our 
country  can  be  delivered  from  this  great  evil,  or  what  is  the 
duty  of  those  who  now  hold  slaves  who  would  be  desirous 
of  dissolving  all  connection  with  the  system,  or  what  is  their 
duty  in  seeking  the  modification  of  the  laws  on  the  subject. 
There  is  one  great  preliminary  matter  first  to  be  settled,  and 
that  is,  to  secure  the  conviction  everywhere,  in  the  church 
and  out  of  it,  that  slavery  is  evil,  and  only  evil ;  that  it  is  con- 
trary to  the  spirit  of  the  Bible  ;  that  the  fair  influence  of  the 
Christian  religion  would  be  to  bring  it  to  an  end  ;  and  that  it 
is  a  system  which  cannot  be  defended  by  any  fair  and  honest 
interpretation  of  the  word  of  God.  The  examination  which 
I  have  pursued  has  conducted  us,  if  I  mistake  not,  to  the  con- 
clusion that  slavery  cannot  rest  for  its  support  on  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Bible.  The  fair  influence  of  the  Bible;  the 
application  of  the  principles  of  the  Christian  religion,  would 
bring  the  system  to  a  'speedy'  end.  This  is  felt  everywhere 
at  the  North ;  and  is  probably  felt  in  the  consciences  of  the 
great  majority  of  persons  at  the  South.  Few  men,  even  there, 
would  have  the  boldness  to  undertake  to  maintain  that  the 
Bible  sanctions  the  system  of  American  slavery,  as  it  is. 
The  great  mass  of  the  friends  of  religion  there  would  admit 
that  the  mild  and  gentle  influence  of  Christianity  would  bring 
it  to  an  end.  Thousands  of  Christians  there,  I  doubt  not,  are 
looking  forward  to  the  time  when  this  shall  be  accomplished, 
and  are  praying  most  sincerely  that  the  gospel  7nay  be  so 
applied  to  all  classes  there — to  the  master  and  the  servant ;  to 
the  legislators  and  the  people  ;  to  the  churches  and  the  com- 
munity at  large — that  the  evils  of  this  system  may  be  ultimately 

3ii* 


378  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

banished,  and  that  all  the  South  may  be  truly  a  land  of  free- 
dom. They  sigh  over  wrongs  and  woes  which  they  yet  see 
no  method  of  removing. 

That  the  South,  moreover,  is  sensible  that  the  fair  influence 
of  the  Bible  is  against  the  system,  and  would  bring  it  to  an 
end,  is  manifest  from  all  the  laws  which  exist  there  to  prevent 
the  truths  of  the  Bible  from  coming  in  contact  with  the  minds 
of  the  slaves  themselves.  If  the  Bible  is  favourable  to  the 
system,  and  would  sustain  it,  the  most  obvious  course  to  con- 
tinue it,  as  has  been  before  observed,  would  be  to  cause  every 
slave  to  be  taught  to  read,  and  to  place  the  Bible  in  every 
negro  cottage  in  the  plantations  of  the  South.  But  this  can- 
not be  done.  The  laws  are  against  it;  the  public  sentiment 
is  against  it,  and  against  it  only  because  it  is  known  that  the 
slave,  if  allowed  to  be  his  own  interpreter  of  the  word  of  God, 
would  not  draw  the  conclusion  that  the  master  often  does, 
that  the  Bible  is  in  favour  of  slavery.  Well  is  it  known  that 
the  Bible  would  teach  him  that  he  is  a  man ;  that  he  is  a 
redeemed  heir  of  life ;  that  he  was  born  as  free  as  others ; 
that  he  has  a  right  to  his  own  time,  and  to  the  fruits  of  his 
own  toil ;  and  that  if  he  had  all  the  rights  which  he  ought  to 
have,  he  would  be  as  free  as  his  master.  Well  is  it  known 
that  the  influence  of  the  Bible,  while  it  would  make  him 
patient  under  his  trials  and  wrongs,  would  awaken  in  his 
bosom  an  inextinguishable  lo\'e  of  liberty.  It  would  be  impos- 
sible to  repress  in  the  soul  the  aspirings  after  freedom ;  and 
with  the  Bible  everywhere  in  his  hands,  it  would  be  impossi- 
ble to  keep  down  the  feeling  that  the  master  was  guilty  of 
oppression  and  wrong. 

Now  this  conviction  that  slavery  is  contrary  to  the  spirit 
of  the  Christian  religion,  and  that  that  religion  will  ultimately 
bring  it  to  an  end,  is  destined  most  certainly  to  increase  and 
prevail.  Nothing  is  more  sure  than  that,  on  this  subject,  the 
human  mind  will  become  strengthened  in  this  conviction 
until  it  becomes  universal.     There  is  but  one  result  every- 


SCRIPTUIL\L    VIKWS    OF    SLAVKRY.  379 

where  to  be  anticipated  in  the  progress  of  knowlcdg-e,  and  in 
the  careful  investi<,'-ations  of  the  Scriptures  on  this  subject,  and 
that  is  the  resuh  which  was  reached  by  the  minds  of  Penn, 
and  llie  younger  Edwards,  and  by  Wilberforce  and  Clarkson, 
that  the  system  of  slavery  is  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the 
Bible.  The  progress  towards  this  result  may  be  temporarily 
checked.  Many  minds  may  for  a  while  hesitate ;  many, 
swayed  by  interest,  may  doubt  it;  but  the  world  will  come 
to  it,  and  will  yet  admit  that  the  system  which  proclaims  that 
man  may  be  held  as  a  chattel,  cannot  be  sustained  by  the 
word  of  Ciod.  "With  reference  to  so  certain  a  result,  we  may 
apply  to  this  anticipated  triumph  of  truth,  the  elocjuent  lan- 
guage with  which  Dr.  Fuller  closes  his  letters  to  Dr.  Way- 
land,  on  slavery. 

"  The  knowledge  of  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  we 
are  assured,  shall  fill  this  guilty  and  polluted  earth,  as  the 
waters  cover  the  face  of  the  deep.  And  it  is  with  that 
knowledge,  too,  as  with  those  Vatera,  when  the  sea  is  rolling 
in.  Wave  after  wave  breaks,  and  is  driven  back ;  but  the 
ocean  is  advancing  ;  and  before  its  majesty  and  strength,  im- 
potent must  every  barrier  prove  ; — vainly  shall  nations  rage, 
and  rulers  take  counsel  together,  and  all  the  kings  of  the 
earth  set  themselves,  saying,  Hitherto  shalt  thou  come,  but  no 
further,  and  here  shall  thy  proud  billows  be  stayed." 

It  is  deeply  affecting  to  see  such  a  mind  as  that  of  Dr. 
Fuller — large,  generous,  highly  cuhivated,  and  well-disci- 
plined— labouring  to  defend  the  system  of  slavery,  yet  deeply 
impressed  with  its  undeniable  evils;  with  the  fact  that  the 
current  of  pubhc  feeling  is  setting  against  it ;  and  that  he  can 
find  little  sympathy  in  the  spirit  of  the  age  while  maintaining 
such  an  argument,  pouring  itself  forth  in  the  following  pen- 
sive and  disconsolate  words  : — 

"  I  have  done  ;  and  mine  has  been  an  irksome  and  cheerless 
tisk.  You  have  had  the  popular  side  of  the  question,  and  the 
Reflector  has  accompanied  your  letters  with  accounts  of  the 


380  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE 

enthusiasm  produced  by  them  at  the  North.  May  you  ever 
be  animated  in  your  pious  labours  by  multitudes  who  love  and 
admire  you, — among  whom  I  shall  always  be  found,  when 
conscience  permits  it.  For  me,  I  have  long  been  schooled  to 
say,  ^  My  soul,  wait  thou  only  upon  God ;  for  my  expec- 
tation is  from  Him  J*  I  expect  no  enthusiasm  from  the 
North,  and  little  even  from  the  South.  I  ask  only  the  calm 
and  honest  reflection  of  wise  and  good  men  for  truth,  which 
may  not  be  welcome,  but  is  truth  for  all  that.  Easily  could  I 
have  composed  papers  which  would  have  been  copied  and 
applauded  here,  but  truth  forbade  it.  Nor  can  I  approve  of 
the  fanaticism  of  the  South,  any  more  than  that  of  the  North, 
on  the  subject  which  has  been  before  us.  I  only  wish,  in 
fact,  that,  instead  of  employing  my  humble  efforts  in  refuting 
an  untenable,  and  mischievous,  and  monstrous  dogma,  I  had 
been  occupied  in  the  more  congenial  work  of  attempting  to 
excite  masters  to  a  sense  of  th^r  fearful  responsibility,  and  to 
the  discharge  of  their  sojemn  duties." 

How  much  more  in  accordance  with  such  a  mind  would  it 
be,  to  engage  in  showing  how  the  system  debases  all  that  is 
noble  in  man,  and  how  contrary  it  is  to  the  spirit  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  and  to  all  the  principles  of  that  religion  which  he  came 
to  establish  in  the  world.  For  such  a  mind  must  perceive 
that  there  is  a  current  setting  against  slavery,  which  nothing 
can  resist.  There  are  great  and  well-established  principles 
in  society,  which  are  constantly  pressing  harder  and  harder 
on  the  system.  The  progress  towards  universal  freedom  is 
onward.  The  spirit  of  the  age ;  the  settled  principles  of 
liberty  ;  the  advances  in  intelligence  and  in  benevolent  feel- 
ing, all  are  against  the  system,  and  it  cannot  survive  the  shock 
when  all  these  are  fully  arrayed  against  it. 

The  defence  of  slavery  from  the  Bible  is  to  be,  and  will 
soon  be  abandoned,  and  men  will  wonder  that  any  de- 
fence of  such  a  system  could  have  been  attempted  from  the 
word  of  God.     If  the  authors  of  these  defences  could  live  a 


SCRIPTl^RAL    VIKWS    OF    SLAVERY.  381 

lillle  loncfcr  than  the  ortlinary  tenn  of  yenrs  allotted  to  man, 
they  would  themselves  wonder  that  they  could  ever  have  set 
up  such  a  defence.  Future  "generations  will  look  upon  the 
defences  of  slavery  drawn  from  the  Bible,  as  amon^r  the  most 
remarkable  instances  of  mistaken  interpretation  and  unfounded 
reasoninjT  furnished  by  the  perversities  of  the  human  mind. 

One  thing  funher  is  settled.  If  the  Bible  could  be  shown 
to  defend  and  countenance  slavery  as  a  good  institution,  it 
would  make  thousands  of  infidels — for  there  are  multitudes  of 
minds  that  will  see  more  clearly  that  slavery  is  against  all  the 
laws  which  God  has  written  on  the  human  soul,  than  they 
would  see  that  a  book  sanctioning  such  a  system  had  evidence 
of  divine  origin.  If  slavery  is  to  be  defended,  it  is  not  to  be 
by  arpriiiTients  drawn  from  the  Bible,  but  by  arguments  drawn 
from  its  happy  influences  on  agriculture,  commerce,  and  the 
arts;  on  the  increase  of  population  and  national  prosperity  ; 
on  morals  and  social  intercourse ;  on  the  military  strength 
which  it  gives  a  people;  on  the  smiling  villages,  the  neat 
dwellings,  the  school-houses  and  churches,  which  it  rears  and 
adorns;  on  its  influence  in  promoting  chastity  and  purity  of 
life ;  on  its  elevating  the  black  man,  and  making  him  more 
intelligent  and  happy  than  he  would  be  in  his  own  land ;  on 
its  whole  benevolent  bearing  on  the  welfare  of  the  slave,  in 
this  world  and  the  world  to  come.  Whether  these  considera- 
tions in  its  favour  are  sufficient  to  defend  the  institution,  may 
be  safely  left  to  the  results  of  an  examination  by  those  who 
are  disposed  to  engage  in  it. 

From  the  whole  train  of  reasoning  which  I  have  pursued, 
I  trust  it  will  not  be  considered  as  improper  to  regard  it  as  a 
position  clearly  demonstrated,  that  the  fair  influence  of  the 
Christian  religion  would  everywhere  abolish  slavery.  Let  its 
principles  be  acted  out ;  let  its  maxims  prevail  and  rule  in  the 
hearts  of  all  men,  and  the  system,  in  the  language  of  tne 
Princeton  Repertory,  'would  speedily  come  to  an  end.*  In 
what  way  this  is  to  be  brought  about,  and  in  what  manner  the 


382  AN    INQUIRY   INTO    THE 

influence  of  the  church  may  be  made  to  bear  upon  it,  are 
points  on  which  there  may  be  differences  of  opinion.  But 
there  is  one  method  which  is  obvious,  and  which,  if  every- 
where practised,  would  certainly  lead  to  this  result.  It  is, 
for  the  Christian  church  to  cease  all  connection  tvith  slavery. 
Happily  we  have,  on  this  subject,  one  most  beautiful  and  in- 
structive example  of  what  might  be  done  by  all  Christian 
churches — the  example  of  the  Society  of  Friends.  Humbly 
commending  that  example  to  the  churches  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  in  this  land,  as  one  eminently  prudent.  Christian,  and. 
wise,  I  would  submit  this  whole  argument  to  the  candid 
judgment  of  the  Christian  public,  to  all  who  love  liberty  and 
value  the  rights  of  man. 

The  history  of  emancipation  among  the  duakers  is  an  ex- 
ceedingly interesting  and  instructive  portion  of  the  history  of 
our  country ;  and  in  the  calm,  and  prudent,  and  persevering 
measures  which  they  have  adopted,  is  probably  to  be  found 
the  true  way  in  which  our  country  can  be,  and  is  to  be,  freed 
from  this  great  evil.  They  have  aimed  at  two  things — and 
two  only — both  of  them  legitimate,  both  of  them  prudent  and 
wise  : — -Jirst  to  remove  slavery  from  their  own  body; and  then 
to  bear  their  solemn  testimony,  in  regard  to  the  evil,,  to  the 
world.  The  first  object  was  pursued  year  after  year  by  patient 
and  manly  discussion,  and  by  faithful  and  affectionate  dealing 
with  their  brethren  ; — and  the  period  at  last  arrived — a  most 
triumphant  period  in  the  history  of  their  body — when  they 
could  announce  to  the  world  that  the  evil  of  slavery  was  not 
attached  to  any  portion  of  their  denomination ;  when  there 
was  not  a  "  Friend"  who  claimed  a  right  of  property  in  his 
fellow-man.  The  other  object  they  have  as  steadily  pursued. 
They  have  borne,  without  ambiguity,  and  without  hesitancy, 
and  with  nothing  of  a  spirit  of  denunciation,  their  '  testimony' 
in  regard  to  the  evil  of  the  system  before  the  world.  They 
offer  no  forced  interference.  They  use  no  harsh  words. 
They  impugn  no  man's  motives.     They  interfere  with  no 


SCRIPTURAL    MKWS    OF    SLAVERY.  383 

rights  protected  by  law.  Rut  ihey  are  a  plain-spoken  people. 
They  use  intelligent  language.  They  do  not  attempt  to  blink 
tile  subject,  or  to  cowr  up  the  evil.  They  make  no  apology 
for  slavery ;  they  never  speak  of  it  as  right ;  they  never 
speak  of  it  as  sanctioned  by  the  Bible  ;  they  never  even  speak 
of  the  difficulty  of  emancipation  ;  they  use  no  metaphysical 
distinctions  on  the  question  whether  it  is  a  moral,  or  a  political, 
or  a  social  wrong,  or  on  the  question  whether  it  is  in  all  cases 
a  sin.  They  leave  the  impression  that  they  regard  it  as  a 
wrong  in  every  sense  of  the  word,  and  that  they  themselves 
deemed  it  so  great  a  wrong  that  they  were  willing  to  make 
great  sacrifices,  that  their  own  denomination  might  be  freed 
from  it  totally  and  for  ever;  and  they  leave  this  solemn  testi- 
mony to  go  forth  to  the  world  for  what  it  is  worth. 

Now  here,  I  am  persuaded,  is  a  wise  model  for  all  other 
denominations  of  Christian  men,  and  the  true  idea  of  all  suc- 
cessful efforts  for  the  removal  of  this  great  evil  from  the  land. 
Let  all  the  evangelical  denominations  but  follow  the  simple 
example  of  the  Quakers  in  this  country,  and  slavery  would 
soon  come  to  an  end.  There  is  not  vital  energy  enough  ; 
there  is  not  power  of  numbers  and  influence  enough  out  of 
the  church,  to  sustain  it.  Let  every  religious  denomination 
in  the  land  detach  itself  from  all  connection  with  slavery, 
without  saying  a  word  against  others  ;  let  the  time  come  when, 
in  all  the  mighty  denominations  of  Christians,  it  can  be 
announced  that  the  evil  has  ceased  with  them  for  ever  ;  and 
let  the  voice  from  each  denomination  be  lifted  up  in  kind,  but 
firm  and  solemn  testimony  against  the  system — with  no 
*  mealy'  words ;  with  no  attempt  at  apology ;  with  no  wish 
to  blirjk  it ;  with  no  effort  to  throw  the  sacred  shield  of  religion 
over  so  great  an  evil — and  the  work  is  done.  There  is  no 
public  sentiment  in  this  land — there  could  be  none  created, 
that  would  resist  the  power  of  such  testimony.  There  is  no 
power  out  of  the  church  that  could  sustain  slavery  an  hour  if 
it  were  not  sustained  in  it.     Not  a  blow  need  be  struck.     Not 


384  SCRIPTURAL    VIEWS    OF    SLAVERY. 

an  unkind  word  need  be  uttered.  No  man's  motive  need  be 
impugned;  no  man's  proper  rights  invaded.  All  that  is 
needful  is,  for  each  Christian  man,  and  for  every  Christian 
church,  to  stand  up  in  the  sacred  majesty  of  such  a  solemn 
testimony ;  to  free  themselves  from  all  connection  with  the 
evil,  and  utter  a  calm  and  deliberate  voice  to  the  world,  and 

THE    WORK    WILL    BE    DONE. 


THE  END. 


PERKINS  &  PURYES. 

Xo.  142  Chestnut  Street, 
PHILADELPHIA, 

PUBLISH   the   following    valuable   morks; 

rVEISII  PSALMODY, 

A  collection  of  Psalms  and  Hymns  for  Public  Worship: 
containiniT  Dr.  Watts''  versijication  of  the  Psalms  of 
David,  entire,  a  lanrc  portion  of  Dr.  Watts^  Hijmns, 
and  Psalms  and  Hymns  by  other  authors. — Selected 
and  Original. 

This  book  is  the  result  of  years  of  uninterrupted  labour.  It  has 
been  prepared  by  a  elerg-yniau  admirably  qualified  for  the  task,  and 
with  unusual  facilities  afforded  him  to  make  the  work  of  the  very 
best  character.  The  Editor  has  availed  himself  of  every  advantage 
which  could  be  derived  from  the  mo.^^t  extensive  collection  of  works 
on  Psalmody,  both  American  and  foreign,  and  frequent  consultation 
with  clcrfiymcn  in  liiis  and  other  sections  of  tiie  country. 

It  has  been  before  the  Christian  public  but  for  a  short  time,  yet  it  has 
received  an  unusual  dejjree  of  approbation,  having  been  warmly  com- 
mended bv  ecclesiastical  bodies  and  individuals  in  various  and  remote 
parts  of  the  Union,  in  connexion  with  the  Constitutional  Prcsby. 
terian  Church.  A  great  number  of  churches  in  many  of  the  States 
have  adopted  it,  and,  judging  from  the  testimonials  received,  it  is  be- 
lieved to  pos.'iCss  a  greater  degree  of  merit  than  any  other  book  now 
before  tlie  public. 

The  pubhshers  beg  leave  to  call  the  attention  of  clergymen  and 
others  to  the  following  characteristics  of  the  Parish  Psalmody. 

I.  It  contains  Dr.  Watts'  versification  of  the  Psalms,  entire  and 
unaltered,  except  in  a  few  instances  of  allusion  to  the  British  nation 
and  government.  Versifications  by  Dwight,  Montgonjery,  and  others, 
of  the  Psalms  omitted  by  Dr.  Watts',  and  some  choice  versifications 
of  other  Psalms,  have  been  inserted,  but  in  all  such  instances  the 
name  of  the  author  is  given  at  the  close  of  tiic  piece. 

II.  Tlie  Parish  Psalmody  contains  also  a  selection  of  Hymns, 
nearly  seven  iiundred  in  number,  which,  (according  to  the  numerous 
testimonials  above  referred  to,)  will  be  found  copious,  adapted  to  a 
great  variety  of  topics  and  occasions,  and  suited  to  the  evangelical  and 

3:3 


active  spirit  of  tlie  age.  Nearly  two  hundred  of  Dr.  Watts'  hymns, 
embracing,  it  is  supposed,  all  that  are  used  in  public  worship,  will 
be  found  in  this  volume.  The  standard  productions  of  Doddridge, 
Cowper,  Newton,  Mrs.  Steele,  and  others,  have  been  scrupulously 
retained. 

TJic  aim  of  the  Editor  has  been  to  allow  the  authors  to  speak  for 
themselves,  and  in  some  cases  what  may  appear  to  be  alterations 
of  the  Hymns,  are  but  restorations  of  the  original  language  and  sen- 
timent, which  has  been  much  injured  by  the  unwarrantable  liberties 
taken  by  other  compilers.  A  ]i3MTin  which  has  once  proved  its  power 
over  the  pious  heart,  may  be  made  more  severely  correct  in  style  or 
sentiment,  but  its  nature  commonly  suffers  by  alteration  more  than 
is  compensated  by  the  removal  even  of  a  slight  defect. 

A  few  hymns,  not  hitherto  familiar  to  the  public,  have  been  al- 
tered,  because  without  alteration  they  could  not  be  admitted  into  a 
volume  of  devotional  poetry,  although  possessing  great  excellence. 
These  are  designated  as  altered. 

III.  The  classification  of  subjects  is  more  minute  than  usual,  and 
is  methodical,  easy,  and  corresponding  with  the  best  arrangement  of 
systematic  theology. 

In  the  running  title  over  the  left-hand  page  is  found  the  general 
subject;  as,  for  instance,  "Ciirist,"  while  over  the  right-hand  page  is 
found  the  subdivision  of  this  general  subject,  as  "Advent,"  "Atone- 
ment," "  Resurrection,"  "Ascension,"  "  Intercession,"  &c. 

A  complete  table  of  the  "Classification  of  Hymns"  is  given.  The 
"Index  of  Subjects,"  and  that  of  "  Passages  of  Scriptures  alluded  to 
in  the  Hymns,"  is  also  very  full. 

In  the  size  designed  for  the  pulpit,  a  table  of  the  "  First  lines  of 
every  Stanza"  in  the  book  is  given,  so  that  upon  the  recollection  of  the 
first  line  of  any  stanza  of  any  Psalm  or  Hymn  in  the  book,  the  piece 
to  which  it  belongs  may  be  readily  found.  The  copiousness  of  the 
indexes  and  tables  has  been  often  mentioned  by  many  of  the  pastors 
who  are  using  the  book,  in  different  sections  of  the  country,  as  afford- 
ing them  greater  facilities  than  any  other  book  they  have  ever  seen. 

IV.  In  addition  to  its  other  excellencies,  there  is  included  in  the 
volume  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  the 
Shorter  Catecliism,  but  congregations  choosing  to  dispense  with  these 
can  be  supplied  with  copies  in  which  they  are  omitted. 

Pastors  and  churches  are  earnestly  desired  to  examine  the  Parish 
Psalmody  before  adopting  any  other  book.  It  is  published  in  the 
three  sizes,  in  .32mo.,  18mo.,  and  12mo.,  all  in  very  clear,  new  type, 
and  will  be  sold  very  low  to  churches. 


RECOMMENDATIONS. 

By  the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania. 
Resolved,  That  the  Parish  Psalmody,  which  has  already  been 
cidopted  extensively  by  the  churches  in  our  connexion,  is  a  Book  of 
Psalms  and  Hymns  of  great  excellence.  The  collection  is  large, 
various,  and  evangelical,  replete  with  lyric  beauty,  and  admirably 
adapted  to  the  wants  and  spirit  of  the  age.     Embracing  also  the  Con- 


Ic&sion  of  Faith  and  Shorter  Catechism,  it  supplies  a  desideratum, 
which  has  been  wanting  licrctotorc  in  the  llynni  Books  in  use  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church. 

Keaolred,  That  wo  recommend  its  adoption,  as  speedily  as  possible, 
by  all  the  churches  under  our  care. 


By  the  SijnO'I  of  Wt\<teni  rcnnsi/linniti. 
Resolved,  That  we  recommend   its   adoption,  (Parish    Psalmody) 
by  all  the  churches  under  our  care. 

Bij  the  Vreshijtery  of  Pittsburgh,  Pa. 

Rrso'vrd,  That  the  Parish  Psalmody,  which  has  been  adopted  by 
two  of  our  churches,  is  a  colleclion  of  Psalms  and  Hymns  of  great 
excellence;  and  we  recommend  its  use  in  all  the  churches  under  our 
care. 

Resolved,  That  we  consider  it  a  stronjj  recommendation  of  the 
Parish  Psalmody,  that  appended  to  it,  fire  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
and  the  Shorter  Catechism;  thus  giving  a  wide  circulation  to  those 
venerated  standards  of  Presbytcrianism,  and  making  all  our  members 
familiar  with  the  system  of  doctrine,  held  and  taught  in  our  elmrch. 

Rfsolved,  That  we  overture  the  Synod  to  take  action  on  this  sub- 
ject, so  that  we  may,  if  possible,  secure  uniformity  of  Psalmody 
throughout  the  ehurciies. 


Extract  from  the  Minutes  of  the  Third  Presbytery,  Philadelphia. 

Tlie  committee  appointed  to  examine  the  "Parish  Psalmody," 
published  by  Messrs.  Perkins  &  Purves,  of  Philadelphia,  respectfully 
report. 

That  they  have  given  due  attention  to  the  book,  and  find  it  to  pos- 
sess more  excellencies,  and  fewer  defects,  than  usually  attach  to 
works  of  this  character. 

It  contains  tlie  Psalms  of  Dr.  Watts  entire  from  the  original  copy, 
except  in  a  few  instances  of  national  allusion,  together  with  a  versifi- 
cation of  the  Psalms  of  David  which  he  omitted,  by  other  and  approved 
authors. 

Most  of  the  Hymns  of  Watts  also  are  given  with  sparing  and  judi- 
cious  alterations.  To  these  are  added  about  five  hundred  of  the  most 
choice  hymns  in  the  English  language,  adapted  to  every  variety  of 
occasion. 

The  index  of  subjects  is  full  and  well  arranged,  and  one  also  of 
Scripture  i)assagrs  on  which  the  hymns  are  founded,  is  added. 

The  book  is  truly  Presbyterian  in  its  character,  containing  the  Con- 
fesfiion  of  Faith  and  .Shorter  Catechism.  The  execution  of  the  work 
is  admirable,  both  for  appearance  and  durability. 

They  would  recommend  the  following  resrjlulion  for  adoption: — 

Risulved,  That  the  Presbytery  recommend  to  the  churches  under 
its  care  the  "Parish  Psalmody,"  i»ublished  by  Messrs.  Perkins  «.V 
Purvey,  of  Philadelphia,  as*  admirably  adapted  to  interest  and  edify 
our  churches  and  congregations,  in  this  department  of  public  worship. 

The  foregoing  is  a  true  extract  from  the  minutes  (.f  tlie  Presbytery. 
Attest,  Robert  Adaik,  iStated  Clerk, 


Extract  from  the  Minutes  of  the  Preslytertj  of  Wilmington. 
Resolved,  That  the  "  Parish  Hymns"  and  "  Parish  Psalmody  be 
recommended  to  all  the  chvirches  under  the  care  of  this  Presbytery, 
for  their  examination,  and  if  they  approve,  for  their  adoption,  as  the 
system  of  Psalms  and  Hymns  to  be  used  in  our  churches. 

Attest,  E.  VV.  Gilbert,  Slated  Clerk. 


Extract  from  the  Minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  Bethlehem. 

Resolved,  That  wc  liig-h'y  approve  the  collection  of  Psalms  and 
Hymns,  entitled  "Parish  Psalmody,"  publisJicd  by  Perkins  &  Purves, 
and  regard  it  as  decidedly  the  most  judicious  selection  with  which 
we  are  acquainted.  Henry  B.  Elliot,  Clerk. 


Extract  from  the  Minutes  of  the  Pastoral  Association  of  this  City, 
{Philadelphia.) 
Tlic  Pastoral  Association  having  recommended  the  *'  Parish 
Hymns,"  published  by  Messrs.  Perkins  &  Purves,  wliich  are  design- 
ed for  use  in  the  lecture-room  and  for  social  worship,  take  great  plea- 
sure in  also  recommending  the  "  Parish  Psalmody,"  recently  publish- 
ed by  the  same  enterprising  gentlemen.  The  design  of  the  '•'■  Parish 
Psalmody"  is  different  from  tliat  of  the  "Parish  Hymns."  The  for- 
mer is  intended  for  tlic  public  worship  of  God,  containing  Dr.  Watts' 
Psalms  entire,  and  nearly  seven  hundred  hymns  from  Dr.  Watts  and 
other  esteemed  authors,  including  tlie  greater  part  of  the  "Parish 
Hymns."  The  care  and  labour  which  have  been  bestowed  in  pre- 
paring this  admirable  collection,  the  execution  of  the  work  as  to  type 
and  paper,  together  with  tlie  cheapness  at  which  the  publishers  have 
offered  the  same,  will,  we  doubt  not,  secure  for  it  the  favour  of  the 
churches;  and  we  earnestly  desire  to  see  this  book  introduced  into 
the  cliurches  of  our  communion.  There  is  another  feature  which 
greatly  commends  it  in  our  esteem;  they  have  appended  to  it  the 
Confession  of  Faith  of  our  church,  and  the  Shorter  Catechism.  This 
will  doubtless  enhance  its  value,  and  give  it  a  more  ready  and  wel- 
come access  into  the  families  in  our  communion. 

Signed,  Charles  Brown,  Secretary. 

FROM    PHILADELPHIA    CLERGYMEN. 

The  followinrr  recommendation  has  been  received  from  sfveral  of  the 
Pastors  of  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  who  have  adopted  the  I^arish 
Psalmody. 

The  undersigned  have  introduced  into  their  respective  churches  the 
"Parish  Psalmody,"  recently  publisiied  by  Perkins  &  PuA-es,  of  this 
city,  and  which  has  received  tlie  approval  of  the  Third  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia,  and  other  ecclesiastical  bodies.  The  following  are  some 
of  its  excellencies,  viz  : 

1.  It  contains  Dr.  Watts'  versification  of  the  Psalms,  entire :  and 
the  Hymns  by  tlie  same  author  are  retained,  with  sparing  and  judi- 
cious alterations.  To  the  Hymns  by  Dr.  Watts  are  added  about  five 
hundred  of  the  best  in  the  English  language. 

2.  The  classification  and  the  index  of  subjects  are  full  and  well  ar- 


ranged:  and  an  index  of  Scii|»lnrc  passages;,  upon  which  tlic  hyiuns 
arc  founded;  and  (in  ihc  lurjjc  size)  an  index  of  the  first  line  of  every 
stanza,  give  it  a  completeness  which  is  seldom  to  be  met  with  ii\  ^4lmi. 
lar  collections. 

3.  It  includes  the  Confession  of  Fuith  and  the  Shorter  Catechism 
of  tlie  Presbyterian  Church,  which  gives  the  book  much  additional 
value. 

We  cordially  recommend  the  "  Parish  Psalmody"  to  our  brethren 
in  the  ministry  and  the  churches  in  our  connexion,  for  their  adoption, 
bclieying  it  to  be  the  best  collection  of  Psalmody  now  in  use. 

Jons  L.  Gil  ANT, 
Pastor  of  the  Uth  Presbyterian  Church,  Phila. 

Charlks  Brown, 
Pastor  of  1st  Presb.  Church,  Fairmount,  Phila. 

Ezra  Stiles  Ei.v,  D.  I). 
Pastor  Elect  of  1st  Presb.  Ciiurch,  N.  L.  Phila. 

Robert  Adair, 
Pastor  of  1st  Presb.  Church,  Southwark,  Phila. 

William  Ka.msey, 
^Minister  of  Cedar  street  Presb.  Church,  Phila. 

M.  La  Rue  P.  '1'mompson, 
Pastor  of  the   5lli  Presbyterian  Church,  Phila. 

Geop.gk  Chandler, 
Pastor  of  1st  Presb.  Church,  Kensington,  Phila. 

E.  J.  Richards, 
Pastor  of  the  Western  Presb.   Church,   Phila. 

Thomas  Brainerd, 
Pastor  of  the  3d  Presbyterian  Church,  Piiila. 

FrO'H   Rev.  James  P.  Wilson^  Pastor  of  the  Presbyterian  C/iurch  at 

Il'irtsville,  Pa. 

I  have  carefully  examined  your  "  Parish   Psalmody,"  and  we  arc 

now  usinjr  it  exclusively  in   public  worship.     I  consider  it  the  bcfct 

system  of  Psalmody  I  have  ever  seen— purely  cathoHc,  and  yet  strict- 

ly  Presbyterian.     ^Vatts'  Psalms  are  wisely  retained  entire,  and  most 

of  the  old  favourite  Hymns,  while  the  new  ones  that  are  added,  arc 

suited    to  the   times,  and  to  the  present   advanced   progress  of  the 

"Church.     I   may  add,  moreover,  the  whole   selection  is   in    poetical 

taste;  and  the  hymns  metrically  adjusted  to  the  present  improvement 

and  variety  in  Church  Music,  and  of  convenient  length. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  remark,  that  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Cate- 
chism apiKmded,  give  the  book  much  additional  value. 

James  P.  Wilson. 


From  Rev.  R.  IV.  Landis,  Pastor  of  the  Presb.  Church  at  SiJneij,  N.J. 

In  relation  to  the  Parish  Psalmodv,  I  must  also  add  a  word.  I 
have  been  labouring  much  with  my  brethren  in  other  churches  lately, 
in  time  of  tliese  great  awakenings,  and  in  my  own  clmrth  there  are 
now  nearly  eighty  inquirers,  who  have  presented  themselves  for  our 
counsel  and  prayer-,  and  I  have  had,  therefore,  an  o[)portunity  to  test 
tlie  relative  merits  of  the  book.  My  catcein  lor  it  has  increased  upon 
33* 


6 

every  comparison,  and  I  find  in  it  a  fulness  of  subjects  and  adapta- 
tion  to  the  exigencies  of  a  revival,  tliat  I  have  found  in  no  other  work 
of  the  kind.  It  has  become  more  and  more  endeared  to  me  and  my 
people,  in  proportion  to  our  use  of  it. 

Robert  W.  Landis. 


From  Rev,  George  Foot,  Pastor  of  the  Drawijer^s  Presbyterian  Church 
Delaware. 
I  have  examined  the  "Parish  Psalmody"  with  mucli  interest.  It 
is,  in  my  opinion,  better  adapted  to  congregational  use  than  any  book 
with  which  I  am  acquainted,  embodying  a  large  portion  of  tlie  best 
hymns  in  the  Englisli  language;  a  great  variety  of  measure,  adapting 
it  to  the  present  state  of  musical  science;  and  also,  those  hymns  which 
are  pecularly  adapted  to  revivals  of  religion.  The  most  decisive  tes- 
timonial, however,  in  its  favour  is,  that  we  have  resolved  to  use  it 
hereafter  in  the  services  of  the  sanctuary.  In  the  sentiment  of  the 
Psalms  and  Hymns,  I  perceive  nothing  to  which  the  most  fastidious 
can  take  exceptions,  while  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechism  an- 
nexed  to  it,  make  it  emphatically  a  Presbyterian  book. 

George  Foot. 


From  Rev.  Charles  Brown,  Pastor  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church 
of  Fairmount,  Philadelphia. 

After  a  careful  examination  of  your  new  collection  of  Psalms  and 
Hymns  lately  published,  and  entitled  ''  Parish  Psalmody,"  I  recom- 
mended it  to  my  congregation,  by  exhibiting  some  of  its  many  ex- 
cellencies. The  superiority  of  your  book  over  the  one  (the  Assem- 
bly's) we  had  in  use,  as  well  as  over  any  wc  had  seen,  was  soon 
manifest;  and  the  congregation,  by  a  popular  vote,  unanimously 
adopted  it. 

We  have  had  it  in  use  for  about  two  months,  and  find  it  in  every 
way  well  adapted  both  to  the  sanctuary  and  the  lecture  room.  The 
Confession  of  Faith  and  Shorter  Catechism,  which  you  have  appended 
to  the  work,  much  improve  its  value. 

Charles  Brown. 


From  Rev.  H.  Bashnell,  of  Cincinnati. 

To  the  Presbyterian  Churches  in  the  West,  not  supplied  with  a 
suitable  Hymn  Book  for  Public  and  Social  Worship: 

I  have  observed  in  many  of  tiie  churches  through  the  country,  a 
great  destitution  of  Hymn  Books,  and  even  where  congregations 
have  a  large  number  of  books,  tlicre  is  generally  so  great  a  variety 
as  to  render  nearly  all  of  them  useless.  Perhaps  no  one  thing  adds 
more  to  the  interest  of  public,  social,  and  family  worship,  than  to 
have  ail  the  worshippers  supplied  with  uniform  books.  I  have  re- 
cently examined  somewhat  carefully,  the  "  Parish  Psalmody,"  for 
sale  by  G.  L.  Weed,  of  Cincinnati,  and  am  confident  that  it  possesses 
excellencies  above  any  work  of  the  kind  now  in  use  in  our  western 
churches.  In  addition  to  Watts'  version  of  the  Psalms  entire,  to- 
gether with  a  versification  of  those  omitted  by  him,  the  book  contains 


about  seven  hundred  hymns,  admirably  arran^rcd  and  adapted  to  the 
wants  of'  the  churches  under  all  their  circumstances.  A  greater  va- 
riety of  subjects  arc  embraced  in  this  book,  than  I  liavc  lierctoforc 
tuund  in  any  other.  Scarcely  can  any  subject  ot'  religion  be  named, 
or  occasion  occur,  in  which  the  "  Parish  Psalmody"  will  not  supply 
a  hymn  adapted  to  the  subject,  and  appropriate  for  the  occasion. 
The  most  orthodox  will,  it  is  presumed,  fuul  no  fault  with  the  senti- 
raent,  nor  the  most  fastidious  with  the  style  of  the  work.  I  believe 
that  a  careful  examination  would  lead  to  its  general  adoption,  espe- 
cially in  all  those  congregations  where  a  unilbrm  Hynm  Book  is 
needed. 

II.  BCSHNELX. 


From  the  Philadelphia  Christian  Observer. 

•  •  •  Alterations  have  been  cautiously  avoided,  especially  in  well 
known  hymns;  and  the  work  of  abridgment,  (often  carried  so  far  as 
to  deprive  the  reader  of  stanzas  which  were  old  and  dear  friends,)  has 
been  sparingly,  and,  wc  think,  judiciously  applied.  In  scrupulously 
retaining  favourite  hymns,  and  avoiding  unnecessary  alterations,  the 
compiler  pursued  a  course  which  the  Christian  public  will  unqucs- 
tionably  approve.  »•»»»*» 

We  think  the  work  possesses  many  of  those  traits  wiiich  the  Chris- 
tian public  most  demand  in  a  book  that  is  used  in  the  devotions  of 
the  sanctuary,  and  is  free  from  those  objections  which  interfere  with 
the  general  popularity  of  other  works  of  the  kind,  and  ue  anticipate 
for  it  a  general  approval. 


From  the  Xew  York  Evangelist. 

This  is  a  work  evidently  prepared  with  care,  and  by  one  who  is  a 
theologiuii  and  a  man  of  taste,  though  we  are  not  informed  who  he  is. 
It  has  some  distinguishing  features,  which  will  jjrobably  commend  it 
to  the  favour  of  many  of  the  churches.     »»»»*»» 

The  alterations  and  abridgments  of  those  hymns  of  Watts  which 
are  given,  are  sparingly  but  judiciously  and  tastefully  made.  They 
are  by  no  means  loo  frequent;  in  our  opinion,  tlicy  might  have  been 
more  frequent,  without  injury  to  the  cause  of  good  psalmody.  The 
selection  from  other  authors  is  copious,  varied,  and  in  good  taste. 
The  whole  nunriber  of  hymns  is  little  less  than  seven  hundred ;  and 
those  adapted  to  8j)eeial  occasions  and  subjects  are  quite  as  numerous 
as  in  any  collection  we  are  acquainted  with.  The  classification  of 
subjects  is  more  minute  than  usual,  and  is  methodical,  easy,  and  cor- 
responding with  the  best  arrangement  of  systematic  theology.  Some 
may  think  it  carried  too  far,  but  it  gives  the  work  an  appearance  of 
symmetry  and  order  which  is  pleasing  and  desirable. 

There  is  added,  also,  the  (onicssion  of  Faith  and  the  Shorter  Cate- 
chism of  the  Presbyterian  Church — a  feature  which,  to  many  church- 
es, will  be  a  great  recommendation  of  the  work.  It  is  very  hand- 
•omcly  printed,  with  fair,  open  type,  and  fine  paper — has  convenient 
indexes  of  subjects,  first  lines,  &c.,  is  well  bound,  and  sold  at  a  mod- 
crate  price.     Wc  doubt  not  it  will  s-trikc  a  large  portion  of  the  re- 


ligious  public  with  favour,  and  find  its  way  to  the  acceptable  use  of 
many  churches. 


From  the  New  York  Observer. 

We  have  examined  this  book  with  some  attention,  and  we  are 
pleased  with  all  that  we  have  yet  seen  in  it;  the  selection  appears  to 
be  made  with  taste,  and  the  variety  is  so  great  that  songs  suitable  for 
any  occasion,  and  adapted  to  almost  any  subject,  may  be  readily 
found. 

Another  feature  we  admire  much  in  this  book — the  Confession  of 
Faith  and  the  Shorter  Catechism  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  are 
added  in  an  appendix.  The  propriety  and  usefulness  of  this  addition 
will  be  very  apparent.  For  other  than  Presbyterian  churches,  which 
adopt  this  book,  an  edition  is  published  without  the  appendix. 

From  the  (Cincinnali,  OhiOy)  Watchman  of  the  Valley. 
From  what  examination  we  have  been  able  to  give  to  tliis  book,  we 
are  inclined  to  believe  it  the  best  hymn-book  now  in  use,  decidedly  in 
advance  of  most  of  those  which  have  issued  from  the  press  of  late. 
We  may  hereafter  notice  it  more  at  large.  We  have  now  only  time 
to  remark  that  the  arrangement  of  the  work,  especially  of  the  index- 
es, and  the  selection  of  the  pieces,  shows  an  excellent  judgment,  and 
sound  devotional  taste. 


From  the  Watchman  of  the  Valley,  (Cincinnati,)  Aug.  8,  1844. 

Parish  Psalmody. — We  some  time  since  noticed  this  work  favour- 
ably, and  a  farther  examination  ha?  strengthened  our  opinion  of  its 
superior  merits.  "  2%e  Parish  Psalmody''^  contains  Watts'  version 
of  the  Psalms  entire;  and  the  work  of  abridgment  and  alteration  is 
sparingly  applied  in  the  case  of  pieces  which  have  become  household 
acquaintances  in  the  Cimrch.  Tastes  differ,  but  for  ourselves,  we 
dislike  to  see  an  old  familiar  hymn  mutilated  or  patched,  though 
done  by  a  skilful  hand.  A  hymn  which  has  once  proved  its  power 
over  the  pious  heart,  may  be  made  more  severely  correct  in  style  or 
sentiment;  but  its  nature  commonly  suffers  by  alteration  more  than 
is  compensated  for  by  the  removal  even  of  a  sli;:ht  defect.  "  The 
Parish  Psalmody"  has  another  excellent  attraction,  in  that  those  who 
wish  can  obtain  copies  which  contain,  at  the  end,  the  "Confession  of 
Faith"  and  ''  Shorter  Catechism" — making  a  most  valuable  book. 


PAKISH    HYMNS. 

A  COLLECTION  OF   IIV-\L\S   FOR  PrBLIC,  SOCLVL,  AND 
riflVATE     WORSIlir, 

SELECTED  AND  ORIGINAL. 


RECOMMENDATIONS. 

Ext  met  from  the  minutes  of  the  Pastoral  Association  of  J'hiladelph  in. 

The  Pastoral  Association  of  this  city,  having  examined  a  collec- 
tion ot'  in'rnns,  just  published  by  Messrs.  Perkins  &:  Purves,  entitled 
'■^Parish  //r/m/is,"  cordially  recommend  it  to  the  churches,  as  in  their 
esteem,  admirably  adapted  lo  promote  the  spiritual  edification  of  the 
people  of  God,  and  as  supplying-  a  deficiency  long  experienced  and 
deeply  felt  in  social  worsliip. 

On  motion,  it  was  Reso'ccd,  That  this  Association  will  hereafter 
use  the  '■^Parish  Ifijtnns''  in  its  devotional  exercises. 

Robert  Adair,  Clerk. 


From  the  New  York  Evangelist. 

The  Pastoral  Association  of  Philadcli)hia,  which  embraces  all  the 
clergymen  of  the  New  School  Presbyterian  church,  has  recently  pub- 
lished a  resolution  highly  approving  of  this  collection  of  Psalmody, 
published  by  Perkins  «fc  Purves,  Philadelphia.  We  took  occasion 
once,  to  exp.-ess  our  own  satisfaction  with  the  work,  and  feel  confi- 
dent that  the  churches  will  find  it  admirably  adapted  for  the  purpose 
of  social  worship. 


From  the  Rev.  Joel  Parker,  D.D.,  and  Rev.  Albert  Dames,  of  Phila- 
delphia. 
The  undersigned  have  examined  the  Hymn  Book  lately  published 
by  Perkins  &  Purves,  of  this  city,  entitled  '^Parish  Hipnns,^'  designed 
for  use  in  the  lecture  room,  and  for  social  worship.  The  book  which 
we  have  been  using  for  a  long  time  we  found  very  defective  in  many 
respects,  and  have  been  induced  to  pay  particular  attention  to  this 
new  publication.  It  is  a  very  copious  colkction — the  arrangement 
simple  and  convenient.  The  hymns  themselves  are  of  a  choice  cha- 
racter. They  arc  lyrical,  and  in  every  way  well  adapted  to  promote 
devotional  feding.  They  are  of  suitable  length,  replete  with  evan- 
gelic.il  sentiment,  and  embrace  a  rich  variety.  Wc  are  using  them 
at  our  weekly  lectures,  and  other  meetings  for  social  worship,  and 
find  them  moi»t  acceptable.  Joel  Parker, 

Albert  Barnes. 


10 

From  Rev.  E.  W.  Gilbert,  D.  D.,  President  of  Def aware  College. 

The  ^^Parish  Hymns''^  have  been  introduced  and  used  for  some  time 
in  tlie  vill.ige  church  of  Newark,  Del.,  and  have  commended  them- 
selves here  as  superior  to  any  collection  hitheito  used.  The  volume 
has  striking  popular  excellencies,  being  suited,  better  than  any  other 
publication  of  my  acquaintance,  to  the  benevolent  activities  of  the 
age.  It  possesses  great  variety,  and  a  superior  arrangement;  and 
contains  many  hymns,  among  the  sweetest  in  the  language,  not 
hitherto  known  to  our  congregations.  For  myself,  I  like  it  not 
merely  for  the  variety  of  subjects  introduced,  but  for  the  great 
variety  of  metres,  and  the  introduction  of  so  many  vivacious  metres 
of  the  dactylic  and  anapaestic  kind. 

E.  W.  Gilbert. 


From  Rev.  William  Sterling,  Reading,  Pa. 

I  have  examined  the  ^'Parish  Hymns''^  with  considerable  care,  and 
find  it  to  approach  nearer  to  my  beau  ideal  of  what  such  a  book 
should  be,  than  any  other  collection  of  the  kind  I  have  ever  seen — 
iiarmonizing,  as  it  does,  with  the  growing  refinement  and  Christian 
spirit  of  the  age. 

The  selection  is  made  with  much  care  and  poetical  taste,  and  pre- 
sents an  extensive  variety  of  subjects  and  metres.  I  therefore  regard 
the  '■'■Parish  Hymns,"  as  well  supplying  a  want  which  I  have  long  felt 
to  exist  in  one  of  the  most  interesting  parts  of  Christian  worship. 

We  have  recently  adopted  it  in  our  lecture  room  and  prayer 
meetings,  and  I  am  happy  to  add  that  my  congregation  are  highly 
pleased  with  it. 

William  Sterling. 


From  Rev.  Ray  Palmer,  Pastor  of  the  Congregational  Church, 
Bath,  Me. 
It  is  now  some  three  months  since  we  introduced  the  ^'■Parish 
Hymns"  into  our  vestry.  I  thought  highly  of  the  work  at  first;  and 
I  am  happy  to  say  that  I  am  equally  well  pleased  with  it  on  a  some- 
what thorough  acquaintance.  The  selections  strike  me  as  in  good 
taste — well  adapted,  generally,  to  music,  and  at  the  same  time  suflli- 
ciently  popular  in  their  character.  On  many  subjects  the  book  is 
richer  in  good  hymns  than  any  I  have  seen.  In  these  days  of  re- 
vivals in  the  church,  good  hymn  books  are  becoming  more  and  more 
important;  and  I  doubt  not  that  the  ^'■Parish  Hymns"  will  prove  ex- 
tensively acceptable  and  useful. 

Ray  Palmer. 


Frojn  the  New  York  Observer. 
Messrs.  Perkins  &  Purves,  of  Philadelphia,  have  just  issued  a  col- 
lection of  hymns  for  social  worship,  which  we  are  inclined  to  believe 
will  be  received  with  great  favour.  The  selection  is  extensive,  com- 
l)rehensive,  and  judicious,  embracing  almost  every  variety  of  subject 
that  can  be  properly  introduced  into  a  social  meeting;  and  taking 
the  whole  together,  there  is,  perhaps,  as  little  to  otfend  good  taste  as 
in  any  hynm  book. 


11 

Wc  wouhl  call  Uie  attention  of  the  cliurclios  to  tlic  **Parish 
Hymns ;^*  and  as  many  arc  aliout  inakini;  clian>;cs  in  the  hooks  to  be 
nscd  in  the  public  worsluj)  of  tlie  sanctuary,  this  may  be  a  tavour- 
ablc  moment  to  introduce  a  new  compilation  ot'  hymns  lor  cveninij 
meetings. 


From  the  Philadelphia  Christian  Observer. 
In  this  collection  of  H_vnins  we  have  the  results  of  a  careful  and 
laborious  examination  of  a  larjje  number  ol'  hymu  books  and  otlier 
volumes  of  reli^^ious  poetry,  niade  with  tiic  design  of  preparing  a 
volume  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  public  taste,  and  in  all  respects 
adapted  to  the  purposes  of  public  and  social  worship.  It  is  an  ex- 
cellent book — worthy  of  the  examination  of  pastors  and  others  who 
are  wishing  to  improve  the  psalmody  of  their  churches. 


From  a  second  notice  in  the  Philadelphia  Christian  Observer. 
It  appears  to  have  been  the  leading  aim,  in  the  preparation  of  this 
book,  to  furnish  such  a  collection  of  hymns  that  the  ('hristian  public 
will  say — -^This  is  what  is  wanted."  It  is  easy  for  a  magazine 
writer  to  speculate  on  the  nature  and  limits  of  devotional  lyric 
poetry,  and  many  speculations  have  been  otfered  in  reviews  and 
other  publications;  but  the  man  who  takes  the  res])onsibility  of  pre- 
paring a  hymn  book  for  the  use  of  worshiping  assemblies,  will  feel, 
if  he  has  a  moderate  share  of  respect  for  enligiitened  public  opinion, 
that  it  is  not  for  him,  under  such  circumstances,  to  exemplity  the 
novel  dogmas  of  critics,  or  prescribe  rules  for  tl;c  devotional  singing 
of  a  nation.  Wc  cannot  but  commend,  therefore,  the  course  adopted 
by  the  editor  of  the  Parish  Hymns,  in  preparintj  the  book,  (to  use 
the  language  of  the  Preface,)  "  with  reference  to  that  standard  which 
is  found  in  the  general  judgment  of  the  Christian  public." 


Fro/n  Rev.  Joshua  N.  Danforth,  Pastor  of  the  Second  Presbyterian 
Church,  Alexandria,  D.  C. 
The  Parish  Hymns  I  consider  an  excellent  collection,  made  with 
judgment,  and  well  adapted  to  the  worshif)  of  our  churches.  In  pre- 
paring such  a  work,  the  dithculty  of  combination  is  great.  To  unite 
a  pure  poetic  imagination  with  the  lofty  spirit  of  Christian  devotion, 
is  a  rare  attainment  Tiiis  collection  piys  great  regard  to  this  prin- 
ciple, and  must,  I  think,  become  popular  and  useful. 

Joshua  N.  Danfortii. 


From  the  M'issachusclts  Eagle. 
We  know  the  author,  we  know  the  publishers,  and,  what  is  more, 
we  know  this  book.  It  is  one  of  the  very  few  hy>nn  books  that  we 
like.  It  comprises  about  six  hundred  hynms,  which,  for  ap[>ropriate- 
ness,  judiciousness  and  simplititv  cannot  be  excelled.  It  contains,  in 
addition  to  the  standard  hymns,  many  that  are  beautifully  tresh.  We 
have  read  it  and  used  it  sufficiently  to  know  that  we  may  safely  re- 
commend it. 


12 
THE  CONSTITUTION 

OF  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH 

IN    THE 

UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA, 

CONTAINING 

The  Confession  of  Faith,  Tlie  Catechisms,  and  the  Directory  for  the  Worship  of 
God,  together  with  tlie  Plan  of  Government  and  Disci|)line  as  ratified  by  the 
General  Assembly,  at  their  sessions  in  ftlay,  1821,  and  amended  in  1840. 

Certijicale  of  the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania. 

The  undersigned,  having-  been  appointed  by  the  Synod  of  Penn- 
sylvania, at  their  sessions,  held  October,  1844,  "  a  Permanent  Com- 
mittee, to  superintend  the  publication  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  the 
Catechisms,  the  Directory  for  Worship,  and  the  Plan  (Form)  of  Gov- 
ernment  and  Discipline  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  and,  after  examining  the  proof  sheets,  to  authen- 
ticate by  their  signature,  at  the  time  of  pubUcation,  every  edition  as 
it  may  be  issued,  in  the  name,  and  on  behalf  of  the  Synod,"  have  ex- 
amined  and  do  hereby  authenticate,  tlie  present  as  a  correct  edition 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America. 

The  Committee  deem  it  expedient  to  add,  that  the  "Confession  of 
Faith"  proper,  the  "  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms,"  and  the  "  Di- 
rectory  for  Worship,"  are  word  for  word,  and  letter  for  letter,  as 
adopted  by  the  fathers  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  1788.  The 
only  alterations  arc  in  the  "Form  of  Government,"  conforming  it  to 
the  amendments  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  1840. 

Thomas  Brianerd,    i 
E.  W.  Gilbert,        \  Committee. 
Robert  Adair,  j 

Philadelphia,  July  1, 1845. 


THE  FORM  OP  GOVERNMENT 

and 

FORMS  OF  PROCESS 

OF  THE 

PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 

IN    THE    UNITED    STATES    OF    AMERICA. 

As   amended   and  ratified   by  the  General  Assembly,  in  May,  1821, 
and  further  amended  in  May,  1840. 


V-vP..' 


